Jump to content

Private Property


Ecylram
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

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.

Whatever. I'm nearly certain that you've participated in threads where cachers have posted that they did obtain permission. Reviewers have also popped in and explained that they are aware of some that have permission. I am personally aware of an LPC in a major chain store's lot who's owner stated to me that he had express permission for same.

 

Just because you used to work for WalMart in the photo center or shoe department (I can't recall which and don't feel like searching), doesn't make you an expert on every manager who has ever worked for WalMart. It also gives you no incite on policies of other stores or property management companies and no idea of what decisions that WalMart or other retailers or property management companies might make at some future moment in time (or any time since the moment that your employment was terminated at WalMart).

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Can anyone who has a cache on private proeprty explain to me why they think it is OK to use someone else's property for our game without permission ?? I am mystified by the idea that some think it is somehow ok to appropriate the use of private property without securing authorization.

It depends on the specific piece of property, the current acceptable use of same and the stated rules governing that use.

Link to comment

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.

Sorry, I confused you by not contradicting you for once! :D

 

I was asking for your opinion.

Link to comment

A private landowner need not state rules governing the use of his property, it is his property. A license to shop on a shopping center is granted to shoppers and for that purpose , but that does not extend to placement of objects owned by someone else without permission. Say for instance I own a hot dog wagon, I can't just park in on your private property without permission , just as I can't presume to place a cache on your property without permission. The law of license is intricate and closely circumscribed, but one can not just assume license, it is a grant from the feeholder.

Link to comment

Just because you used to work for WalMart in the photo center or shoe department (I can't recall which and don't feel like searching), doesn't make you an expert on every manager who has ever worked for WalMart. It also gives you no incite on policies of other stores or property management companies and no idea of what decisions that WalMart or other retailers or property management companies might make at some future moment in time (or any time since the moment that your employment was terminated at WalMart).

 

Having also worked for the ghost of Sam Walton, I'd say that his observation is pretty much on target. I'd also reckon that his experiance gives him a fair bit more insight into the inner workings of the store than say, for example, yours.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment
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!
Just a point of order. Wal-Mart stores, whenever possible, lease their property from a company that they own and operate.

 

That way, when they are buying the property, the seller doesn't see "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc" on the offer and suddenly jack their price. :D

Link to comment
Whatever.
Last time I heard someone start a rebuttal with "Whatever," it was a 12 year old. Almost as good as "Yawn." :D
I'm nearly certain that you've participated in threads where cachers have posted that they did obtain permission. Reviewers have also popped in and explained that they are aware of some that have permission. I am personally aware of an LPC in a major chain store's lot who's owner stated to me that he had express permission for same.
Miss this part, did we?
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. . .
Just because you used to work for WalMart in the photo center or shoe department (I can't recall which and don't feel like searching), doesn't make you an expert on every manager who has ever worked for WalMart.
It was Photo, the shoe department was not headed by a salaried position, so they didn't get sent to the training classes I was sent to.
It also gives you no incite on policies of other stores or property management companies and no idea of what decisions that WalMart or other retailers or property management companies might make at some future moment in time (or any time since the moment that your employment was terminated at WalMart).
True, I don't know the policies of other stores, but it does give some insight into what other stores might do. With the reasons given for Wal-Mart to say "No" to geocaching, it'd take quite a bit to get them to turn their policies on their heads and say "Yes."
Link to comment

I would think that in a corporate environment as large as some of these retailers that all decisions regarding permissive use of their private space must come from the corporate real estate department and not from the local retail manager. From a corporate operations standpoint to do otherwise would be chaos. So no cacher should ever consider that the local manager of a multi national chain has the authority to give permission, nothwithstanding the representation of that authority. It flies in the face of reality of corporate structure.

Link to comment

Can anyone who has a cache on private proeprty explain to me why they think it is OK to use someone else's property for our game without permission ?? I am mystified by the idea that some think it is somehow ok to appropriate the use of private property without securing authorization.

 

I think many people simply assume that if you can go there, you can leave a container there, and give it no further thought. A cache was placed in my area on property that was posted with no trespassing signs. The direct route to the cache required you to cross barbed wire fence. The owner was not concerned because he was able to get to the cache location by climbing over some rocks on a route that did not require him to go directly past any signs or fences.. Eventually, a cacher had the inevitable confrontation with the angry property owner.

 

Shopping areas present more of an issue because they are open to the public for various purposes. These purposes are generally limited, as one of our state courts observed in upholding the right of a store to prohibit political activity: "Trader Joe's invites people to come and shop for food and food related items. It does not invite them to meet friends, to eat, to rest or to be entertained." (Trader Joe's v. Progressive Campaigns.) And even if the area was a mall that invites people to come to the property in ways that are consistent with first amendment principles, leaving containers is probably not one of them.

 

But in the absence of any interest by Groundspeak, it seems that people will continue to leave containers wherever they may go. And people will continue to find them. I did not choose to go past the fences in the first example above; nor did I choose to look for a recent cache that warned visitors to be careful about security cameras. But if I am in the area I might stop at a parking lot. Thus far, people who have asked me what I am doing have generally been curious rather than confrontational. But I sometimes wonder if I might look like a mad bomber to someone who is less inclined to ask.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

What I do not understand is why Groundspeak does not require cache placers to indicate who gave permission over concerned about getting sued. Its not like Groundspeak does not know there are countless caches being placed on private property without permission. Its also not like Groundspeak could not easily adopt reasonable procedures to stop this. Its one thing if a cache placers lies about obtaining permission. But when they know there is widespread cache placing on private property without permission and they do not require explicit permission, I do not understand why they do not fear a jury holding Groundspeak responsible. If someone places a cache on a store's parking lot without permission and the bomb squuad blows it up, why would not it be reasonable to expect a jury to hold Groundspeak at least partically responsible?

 

It also amazes me how hard it generally is to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down. Has anyone ever had a no trespassing sign issue quickly resolved by a reviewer or Groundspeak? I cannot EVER remember not having to basically fight to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down. It also amazes me how people who knowingly place caches on posted no trespassing land and delete logs and pictures of the sign are allowed to continue placing caches. I also do not understand why people who knowingly go on posted no trespassing land are allowed to keep thier find. It seems to me a rule to delete all finds on posted no trespassing land would discourage the numberhounds who will trespass for another find.

Link to comment

I have seen caches bolted to private property, I have seen cache bolt onto utility poles, I have seen caches attached to stop signs with screws, I saw one cache in which a cacher drill a 1.5 inch hole into a post supporting a gazeebo in a public park. I have seen the classic sprinkler head that I burried in the ground (very common) I have seen buried tupperware, I found a large box that was burried many years ago that was fill with fireworks I even saw one cache in which the cache owner built a box into the hallow of a tree which by drilling holes in the tree and they using an assortment of bolts and screws, and as if that was not enough he then fill all the spaces with spray on foam inllsuation. I found one cache in which the cache owner dismantel a sign in a public park and then put it back together after hollowing out part of the sign in order to hide the cache.

 

THen lets not forgot all the cachers that have found thousands of caches and that have hidden dozens of caches that fidn cache that they know are illegal but do not report them with a should be archived. But then if they did the rest of the caching community will come down on them for geing a so called cache cop.

 

If a cacher is not working to end the problem of illegal caches, then that cacher is part of thye problem.

Link to comment

Not only is there the issue of placing caches on private property, but there is also placing caches on public property that results in tresspassing and damage to private property.

 

One of the final straws with me getting so fed up with the numbers hounds was such a case. I was driving home from doing quality caches in a State Park and there was a cache along the busy highway. I pulled off to the only place you could and it appeared to be someones driveway. The cache was obviously in a guardrail about 100 feet away. So I read the logs and there were a couple of logs indicating the landowner whose driveway I was in was real upset about the cache. The logs indicated he told the cachers that people had trespassed on his property and made ruts in his yard getting the cache. So I drove on. When I got home, I posted a SBA log pointing out two cachers had said the landowner was upset about the cache and wanted it removed - Its not like this cache was around something interesting. It was a guardrail on a busy highway with no public parking. The reviewer suggested the CO post parking cords (for which there were none and none were ever posted). So the cache remained active until a log reported the land owner had told them he had removed the cache. So I posted another SBA log. Finally the CO shut it down but pointed out what a jerk the landowner and I were.

Link to comment

If a cacher is not working to end the problem of illegal caches, then that cacher is part of the problem.

 

On the other hand, when I informed reviewers about a cache behind no trespassing signs, I was told to take it up with the CO, who I had already contacted.

 

What I do not understand is why Groundspeak does not require cache placers to indicate who gave permission over concerned about getting sued.

 

My guess, made without any real thought or research, is that they believe they are better protected by listing a cache, where the placer has indicated that there is adequate permission and not making further inquiries (don't ask, don't tell?). In some situations, the more you ask, and the more responsibility you take on, the greater the potential liability. Still, that was also the Limewire defense and it did not do them that much good and it would be a rather complex analysis should it ever come down to that.

 

I have sometimes thought that the earthcache approach is a good one, at least as it extends to private property. If it is on private property, then the user should indicate that they have received express permission or explain why express permission is not needed in this particular situation. That does not mean that reviewers would have to verify the statement or people could not cheat, but it would indicate that Groundspeak is concerned about permission, the placer would have to give it some thought, and Groundspeak could take appropriate steps if there was a problem with the cache.

 

But it would probably come back to the reason in the the first paragraph.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

What I do not understand is why Groundspeak does not require cache placers to indicate who gave permission over concerned about getting sued.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I've sat in enough corporate management meetings to have a clue... Groundspeak doesn't require cache placers to indicate who gave permission, precisely because they don't want to be sued.

 

As it currently stands, Groundspeak is a listing service. They have a set of guidelines, and publish any cache that meets the guidelines. The cache hider checks a box indicating that he has "adequate permission." If anything goes wrong, it's the hider's responsibility and Groundspeak is off the hook.

 

If Groundspeak were to police these permission issues more than they do now, they would be accepting responsibility for the hides. That would open them up to being sued. They way it's set up now, they have no legal responsibility. This is much the same legal principal that keeps UPS from being responsible if illegal drugs are shipped through their system, or AT&T from being responsible if a group of terrorists uses their cell network to plan their crimes.

Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

Edited by Keeper of Maps
Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

 

I was not aware that it was Wal-Mart security that had spoted the cache in the first place. I do not doubt that the officer said what he said or the truthfulness of your reporting- however there have been cases in the past where the property owner was aware of the cache, was on site, had told the police that it was harmless and the cache was destroyed anyway, "just in case".

Link to comment

Has anyone ever had a no trespassing sign issue quickly resolved by a reviewer or Groundspeak?

 

I posted a DNF for this cache and within an hour, our reviewer disabled it. I did not know it at the time, but I think this cache was owned by the reviewer, so they got my DNF as an e-mail.

 

When this cache was first placed, it probably was not posted land. The issue is that the land was owned by someone who constructed a new building there recently.

Link to comment

Has anyone ever had a no trespassing sign issue quickly resolved by a reviewer or Groundspeak?

 

I posted a DNF for this cache and within an hour, our reviewer disabled it. I did not know it at the time, but I think this cache was owned by the reviewer, so they got my DNF as an e-mail.

 

When this cache was first placed, it probably was not posted land. The issue is that the land was owned by someone who constructed a new building there recently.

 

Well, many reviewers watch new caches in case any problems pop-up. Nice theory you have on your local reviewer though. :D This brings up another frequent cache on private property issue I see all the time. The cache you link to now looks like it's on the grounds of a brand-spanking new Hooters Restauraunt. Before that, I'm sure it was a wooded area amongst suburban shopping sprawl. You would think it would be a no-brainer such a wooded property, surrounded by stores and restauraunts, belongs to a developer.

 

Bottom line, I've seen tons of caches on wooded plots, that altough not posted, are obviously private property. It's as if anytime someone see's a wooded plot in suburbia, it's "cache on".

Link to comment

Perhaps the guidelines need to be refreshed to be more explicit, and need to say that without express permission of a private landholder a cache can not legitimately be placed there.

 

A proliferation of bad hides (now fully underway locally--something we have heretofore avoided) in my mind will damage our game in the long run.

Link to comment

Just because you used to work for WalMart in the photo center or shoe department (I can't recall which and don't feel like searching), doesn't make you an expert on every manager who has ever worked for WalMart. It also gives you no incite on policies of other stores or property management companies and no idea of what decisions that WalMart or other retailers or property management companies might make at some future moment in time (or any time since the moment that your employment was terminated at WalMart).

 

Having also worked for the ghost of Sam Walton, I'd say that his observation is pretty much on target. I'd also reckon that his experiance gives him a fair bit more insight into the inner workings of the store than say, for example, yours.

Except for the simple fact that his opinions contradict the reality that several have experienced.

Link to comment
Whatever.
Last time I heard someone start a rebuttal with "Whatever," it was a 12 year old. Almost as good as "Yawn." :D
Or perhaps I merely don't care to have the same old argument with you, yet again. If you would like to relive the same old argument, go read some of the old threads.
I'm nearly certain that you've participated in threads where cachers have posted that they did obtain permission. Reviewers have also popped in and explained that they are aware of some that have permission. I am personally aware of an LPC in a major chain store's lot who's owner stated to me that he had express permission for same.
Miss this part, did we?
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. . .
Your opinion seems to run contrary to the facts. Also, it should be noted that an employee can indeed give legal permission for many things that the employer may not approve of. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

 

I was not aware that it was Wal-Mart security that had spoted the cache in the first place. I do not doubt that the officer said what he said or the truthfulness of your reporting- however there have been cases in the past where the property owner was aware of the cache, was on site, had told the police that it was harmless and the cache was destroyed anyway, "just in case".

 

The part I bolded assumes facts that are not in evidence.

 

Cacher: "Mr. Manager, let me tell you about geocaching. Now that I've explained our harmless little game, do you mind if I put this film can under the skirt of a light pole out in the parking lot?"

 

Wal Mart Manager: "Sure, kid. Knock yourself out. I've seen people doing a lot worse in our parking lot. Y'all have fun!"

 

So, now security knows all about the cache? I don't think so. The Information Officer for the Plano PD is not omniscient; he might assume that if the manager had given permission, the security guards would have known about it. Having worked for a few managers, and actually been a security guard at one point, I'm pretty sure they would have known nothing about it.

Link to comment

I would think that in a corporate environment as large as some of these retailers that all decisions regarding permissive use of their private space must come from the corporate real estate department and not from the local retail manager. From a corporate operations standpoint to do otherwise would be chaos. So no cacher should ever consider that the local manager of a multi national chain has the authority to give permission, nothwithstanding the representation of that authority. It flies in the face of reality of corporate structure.

The reality of the corporate structure nor the policies of the corporation would control such an action. If the local manager is reasonably perceived by an outsider to be able to give permission and he does so, the permission would be 'legal'.

 

Of course, by giving such permission, he may be subjecting himself to possible disciplinary action regardless of whether the company has a controlling policy. This is why many managers would likely rather not be asked about such trivial things. (Yes. a few more people wandering about the bloated parking lot of a WalMart is a trivial thing.)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

What I do not understand is why Groundspeak does not require cache placers to indicate who gave permission over concerned about getting sued. Its not like Groundspeak does not know there are countless caches being placed on private property without permission. Its also not like Groundspeak could not easily adopt reasonable procedures to stop this. Its one thing if a cache placers lies about obtaining permission. But when they know there is widespread cache placing on private property without permission and they do not require explicit permission, I do not understand why they do not fear a jury holding Groundspeak responsible. If someone places a cache on a store's parking lot without permission and the bomb squuad blows it up, why would not it be reasonable to expect a jury to hold Groundspeak at least partically responsible?

The simple answer is because Groundspeak didn't tell anyone that there was a bomb somewhere, nor did it call the police regarding a suspicious package. If anything, Groundspeak is specifically stating that the item in question is a geocache, not a bomb.
It also amazes me how hard it generally is to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down. Has anyone ever had a no trespassing sign issue quickly resolved by a reviewer or Groundspeak? I cannot EVER remember not having to basically fight to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down.
All you have to do is contact TPTB. They will immediately archive the cache.
It also amazes me how people who knowingly place caches on posted no trespassing land and delete logs and pictures of the sign are allowed to continue placing caches. I also do not understand why people who knowingly go on posted no trespassing land are allowed to keep thier find. It seems to me a rule to delete all finds on posted no trespassing land would discourage the numberhounds who will trespass for another find.

The problem is the listing, not the finders who assumed that the cache was hidden within the guidelines. If you discover a cache that requires you to pass a no trespassing sign and there is no explanation on the cache page, use the NA log.
Link to comment
outsider to be able to give permission and he does so, the permission would be 'legal'.

 

Agreed.

 

But that is not really what is in question, my question is what makes a cacher think that he can just go and place a cache on private property without securing permission--express permission from someone in real or apparent authority to grant that request. That is the crux of what is really being discussed here, not managerial excesses.

 

In my mind, a cacher can not in good conscience place a cache on private property without securing permission of the owner or party in control

 

As an aside, the Walmarts in my area are all covered with extensive surveilance camera systems, no cache would remain un observed for any length of time in any of the local shopping areas. The activity would be observed and noted.

Link to comment

I have seen caches bolted to private property, I have seen cache bolt onto utility poles, I have seen caches attached to stop signs with screws, I saw one cache in which a cacher drill a 1.5 inch hole into a post supporting a gazeebo in a public park. I have seen the classic sprinkler head that I burried in the ground (very common) I have seen buried tupperware, I found a large box that was burried many years ago that was fill with fireworks I even saw one cache in which the cache owner built a box into the hallow of a tree which by drilling holes in the tree and they using an assortment of bolts and screws, and as if that was not enough he then fill all the spaces with spray on foam inllsuation. I found one cache in which the cache owner dismantel a sign in a public park and then put it back together after hollowing out part of the sign in order to hide the cache.

 

THen lets not forgot all the cachers that have found thousands of caches and that have hidden dozens of caches that fidn cache that they know are illegal but do not report them with a should be archived. But then if they did the rest of the caching community will come down on them for geing a so called cache cop.

 

If a cacher is not working to end the problem of illegal caches, then that cacher is part of thye problem.

Many of your examples don't come close to violating the guidelines, in and of themselves. For instance, the earlier decision on a sprinkler head that is simply pushed into wet soil is that it does not violate the digging guideline. Similarly, a object bolted into an existing hole doesn't necessarily violate a guideline. Existing items can be adapted if permission is obtained. etc
Link to comment

Not only is there the issue of placing caches on private property, but there is also placing caches on public property that results in tresspassing and damage to private property.

 

One of the final straws with me getting so fed up with the numbers hounds was such a case. I was driving home from doing quality caches in a State Park and there was a cache along the busy highway. I pulled off to the only place you could and it appeared to be someones driveway. The cache was obviously in a guardrail about 100 feet away. So I read the logs and there were a couple of logs indicating the landowner whose driveway I was in was real upset about the cache. The logs indicated he told the cachers that people had trespassed on his property and made ruts in his yard getting the cache. So I drove on. When I got home, I posted a SBA log pointing out two cachers had said the landowner was upset about the cache and wanted it removed - Its not like this cache was around something interesting. It was a guardrail on a busy highway with no public parking. The reviewer suggested the CO post parking cords (for which there were none and none were ever posted). So the cache remained active until a log reported the land owner had told them he had removed the cache. So I posted another SBA log. Finally the CO shut it down but pointed out what a jerk the landowner and I were.

It sounds as if he wasn't the actual landowner of the land that the cache was hidden on, so I agree that he was a jerk.

Link to comment

Of course, by giving such permission, he may be subjecting himself to possible disciplinary action regardless of whether the company has a controlling policy. This is why many managers would likely rather not be asked about such trivial things. (Yes. a few more people wandering about the bloated parking lot of a WalMart is a trivial thing.)

 

I guess it is trivial until your store is ordered to be evacuated.

 

Then I suppose the company memos start to fly. I would be curious to read one of them.

Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

 

I was not aware that it was Wal-Mart security that had spoted the cache in the first place. I do not doubt that the officer said what he said or the truthfulness of your reporting- however there have been cases in the past where the property owner was aware of the cache, was on site, had told the police that it was harmless and the cache was destroyed anyway, "just in case".

Remember the one that was outside a police station with permission of the Chief? The bomb squad blowed it up good.
Link to comment
outsider to be able to give permission and he does so, the permission would be 'legal'.

 

Agreed.

 

But that is not really what is in question, my question is what makes a cacher think that he can just go and place a cache on private property without securing permission--express permission from someone in real or apparent authority to grant that request. That is the crux of what is really being discussed here, not managerial excesses.

 

In my mind, a cacher can not in good conscience place a cache on private property without securing permission of the owner or party in control

 

As an aside, the Walmarts in my area are all covered with extensive surveilance camera systems, no cache would remain un observed for any length of time in any of the local shopping areas. The activity would be observed and noted.

Both issues have been discussed here.

 

Some believe that no permission is required in such scenarios. Call this the frisbee rule, if you must.

Some believe that permission for these caches have not been attained because they believe that permission would never be given. This flies in the face of the fact that many of these caches are known to have permission. That led to some demanding that this cannot be correct because only corporate could give permission and they would not. This position is incorrect because it is legally wrong and because a former manager of the photo center at WalMart could not reasonably know every decision that could be made by the corporation.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Also, it should be noted that an employee can indeed give legal permission for many things that the employer may not approve of.
So, if you had someone house sitting your home, and while you were away on vacation, they said it was ok for some guy off the street to invite people to your home for a picnic, that'd be legal?

 

And, if you had someone managing your store, and while you were at the Home Office, they said it was ok for some guy off the street to invite people to your store for a geocache, that'd be legal?

 

Neither the housesitter nor the employee has the authority to offer permission on land they don't own.

Link to comment

But both can exceed their authority and absolve you of the consequences of acting upon their apparent authority.. It is you who can not unilaterally undertake the action on someone else's land. You who in this case would be a cache hider, must without question seek permission and for protection of yourself have that information secured somewhere--if you are going to hide on private property. I think reviewers should be direct in some cases in asking if permission was obtained on private property placements.

 

Some believe that no permission is required in such scenarios. Call this the frisbee rule, if you must.

 

Some people believe some rather strange things, but they are not grounded in any form of reality. Permission is required to appropriate anothersd private property to your own use or the use is invalid and without license is a trespass.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

Cacher: "Mr. Manager, let me tell you about geocaching. Now that I've explained our harmless little game, do you mind if I put this film can under the skirt of a light pole out in the parking lot?"

 

Wal Mart Manager: "Sure, kid. Knock yourself out. I've seen people doing a lot worse in our parking lot. Y'all have fun!"

 

So, now security knows all about the cache? I don't think so. The Information Officer for the Plano PD is not omniscient; he might assume that if the manager had given permission, the security guards would have known about it. Having worked for a few managers, and actually been a security guard at one point, I'm pretty sure they would have known nothing about it.

 

Add to this- often the "security team" is just a group of regular employees that have been assigned to a few extra responsibilities within the store. No ninja training, no badge.

 

Sometimes they contract out for security. These folks might receive instruction from the Managers, but they aren't on Wal-Mart payroll.

 

Now consider the rate at which managers transfer from store to store and the chances of all new managers being told about the game going on out in the parking lot.

 

I'm sure that some cachers may actually speak with a manager and that said manager may give permission- but the value of that permission in a "hey there are weirdos looking at your lamps out there" situation may fluctuate wildly in any direction.

Link to comment

How to manage:

 

A statement contained in the reviewer note when submitting for publication as to how and from whom permission was given, along with appropriate details, i.e. address of person or phone number.

 

I'd add that in some situations seeing this information, or a version of it, in the cache description will affect my decision to search for a cache in some areas.

 

Here, for example:

 

frontdoor001.jpg

Link to comment

How to manage:

 

A statement contained in the reviewer note when submitting for publication as to how and from whom permission was given, along with appropriate details, i.e. address of person or phone number.

 

I've already explained why this is not going to happen. You might think that by doing what you suggest, GS would be covering their own backsides. In fact, they would be doing the opposite. If they exert that level of control, they become responsible for any screwups. As it stands now, GS has no responsibility; the responsibility for the cache is entirely with the cache owner.

 

Groundspeak doesn't give you permission to place a cache; they just list the information that you submit. If they give you permission, they accept responsibility.

Link to comment

But absent that info, they just don't publish, they are not giving you permission they just require that information for publication, just like they require coordinates and the like.

 

Sorry, I should have said contained in the Note to Reviewer contained in the on line submission form.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

Knowing that such information has been provided would give cachers confidence that at least the cache owner has gained permission for cachers to be in the area.

It strengthens the case for cachers to be able to explain to irate land owners that permission has been sought and granted.

This happened in the UK where the local gamekeeper was irate until it was explained the land owner had granted permission for the cache. The gamekeeper immediately backed off and even apologised.

Link to comment

I would say: having in the cache description the name (and if appropriate title) of who gave permisison. I do not think the reviewers should be expected to check to make sure before publishing the cache. However, if someone lies, they should be banned from caching. But considering Groundspeak does not ban cachers who knowningly put a cahce on posted no tresspassing land or deleting logs pointing out tresspassing issues, I do not expect them to. But what kind of example does this set?

 

Additionally, if you are placing a cache in someone's yard, the cache description should also have enough information for you to know you are in the correct yard (i.e., a house number or description of the house).

Link to comment

I would say: having in the cache description the name (and if appropriate title) of who gave permisison. I do not think the reviewers should be expected to check to make sure before publishing the cache. However, if someone lies, they should be banned from caching. But considering Groundspeak does not ban cachers who knowningly put a cahce on posted no tresspassing land or deleting logs pointing out tresspassing issues, I do not expect them to. But what kind of example does this set?

 

Additionally, if you are placing a cache in someone's yard, the cache description should also have enough information for you to know you are in the correct yard (i.e., a house number or description of the house).

 

Oh I would love a house color or something for those yard ones. I was in an area where the GPS bounced in this neighborhood and supposed to go into someone's yard to find the cache but the GPS bounced between the 3 houses on the curve/corner.

Link to comment
It also amazes me how hard it generally is to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down. Has anyone ever had a no trespassing sign issue quickly resolved by a reviewer or Groundspeak? I cannot EVER remember not having to basically fight to get a cache on posted no trespassing land shut down.
All you have to do is contact TPTB. They will immediately archive the cache.

I once posted a Needs Archived on a cache because the property owner didn't know it was there and asked for us to contact whoever we need to so it could be removed. The cache was archived by the reviewer 6 minutes later.

Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

 

I was not aware that it was Wal-Mart security that had spoted the cache in the first place. I do not doubt that the officer said what he said or the truthfulness of your reporting- however there have been cases in the past where the property owner was aware of the cache, was on site, had told the police that it was harmless and the cache was destroyed anyway, "just in case".

 

Ah... this is what comes from not reading the full story because it's mentioned in the second paragraph.

 

With respect to the "cases in the past" that you allude to, there must be more to those "cases" that prompted the police to destroy something the property owner had vouched for.

Link to comment

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".

 

As the author of the article in question, I stand by that statement, which is based on several emails I exchanged with an information officer with the Plano PD.

 

In response to my question about who saw the suspicious activity (i.e. the cachers retrieving/replacing the cache), he said: "Walmart security saw it happen and reported it. If the individuals hiding the item would of contacted Wal Mart this would not of happened." (That is a direct quote from one of the emails he sent.)

 

If Walmart had granted permission for the cache to be on their property their security people would have been aware of it and probably not felt compelled to report the activity to the police after determining it was related to the geocache. If they called the police anyways and the cache owner could prove that he had permission to place the cache, I suspect that a) the police would have had a conversation with the Walmart security people about doing due diligence before calling the police (but to always err on the side of caution if there's any doubt), and b ) the cache owner might have been asked to remove the cache anyways.

 

I was not aware that it was Wal-Mart security that had spoted the cache in the first place. I do not doubt that the officer said what he said or the truthfulness of your reporting- however there have been cases in the past where the property owner was aware of the cache, was on site, had told the police that it was harmless and the cache was destroyed anyway, "just in case".

 

The part I bolded assumes facts that are not in evidence.

 

Cacher: "Mr. Manager, let me tell you about geocaching. Now that I've explained our harmless little game, do you mind if I put this film can under the skirt of a light pole out in the parking lot?"

 

Wal Mart Manager: "Sure, kid. Knock yourself out. I've seen people doing a lot worse in our parking lot. Y'all have fun!"

 

So, now security knows all about the cache? I don't think so. The Information Officer for the Plano PD is not omniscient; he might assume that if the manager had given permission, the security guards would have known about it. Having worked for a few managers, and actually been a security guard at one point, I'm pretty sure they would have known nothing about it.

 

The smart cacher would have then said "I need a quick letter of permission so that I can prove I have permission. And could you give a copy to your security office so that they don't freak out when people show up on the property at 2am? Many thanks!"

 

At this point the manager will hopefully say "sure, here ya go". If there's any resistance then the cache shouldn't be placed.

 

Frankly, if you're placing a cache on a pole in a parking lot there's probably a better place to put it. There have been enough incidents that anyone placing a geocache should be thinking about this when choosing the location.

 

And were I a reviewer evaluating an LPC in a parking lot (easy enough to check), I would ask the cache owner to confirm the landowner gave them permission. I have a cache that's on land well outside the fence of an airport by several hundred metres, but is on land that is allocated to the airport on some maps. The reviewer questioned this during the approval process and only approved it when additional information was provided.

Link to comment
Your opinion seems to run contrary to the facts.
Just because some chuckleheaded store manager said someone could hide a cache in the parking lot doesn't mean they were right to do so. Yes, I said chuckleheaded. I had a real one as the manager of the store I was in. The Divisional Manager (that is, his boss's boss's boss) had told a group of photo managers that the Photo Lab should hold a special place in a store manager's heart, since it brought customers into the store 3 times with two guaranteed sales: once to buy film (ring!), once to drop it off, and once more to pick it up (ring!). It's also the division with the highest markup in the company. When Wal-Mart first picked up on cell phones, they gave it to the photo division because of the division's track record. Well, my store manager seemed to think the photo lab had a special place, all right. In #ell. He was a real jerk, thankfully, the co-manager was a bit of a buffer. He's one of the reasons I found it easy to leave when the opportunty to work where I do now came up. He actually transferred to the store that had the most profitable lab in the state. I got a phone call a month later from the panicked lab manager. "John, how did you deal with this guy?!?" He was running the best lab in the state and the store manager was still giving him a hard time??

 

So, it isn't beyond the realm of imagination that a store manager could go against the advise and/or policies of the home office. Out of the thousands of Wal-Marts out there, I guarantee you'll find one who will. Doesn't mean they were right to do it.

Also, it should be noted that an employee can indeed give legal permission for many things that the employer may not approve of.
I hid a cache at the top of an old ski area near me (and another one part way up). Went to the base lodge, talked to "Dana", the man living there who presented himself as the owner of the property. He was running an adventure camp from there, and had maps of the trails he was "maintaining." "Dana" seemed excited about the idea of the cache. So, off I went.

 

Two and a half years later, I get a call that the State Police are concerned about my caches. After a few phone calls, I spoke with the guy who was leasing the land from the owner. Turns out,"Dana" was not the owner, but was from what I can gather living there in exchange for keeping an eye on the place. He got into some trouble, I'm assuming it has to do with the fact he was running a business out of the place w/out permission. I mentioned "Dana's" name initially, and was told "OH! If you talk with the owner, don't, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES mention that name! He's persona non grata 'round him!" The lessor had a radio tower on the mountain that had, among other things, a State Police radio repeater on it that people had apparently been base jumping from! The land was being posted. I got permission to go up one last time & retrieve the caches.

 

It is, in fact, possible for an employee to give permission that is not legal. "Dana's" permission wasn't legal.

Link to comment

This one was placed with permission, and was actually a nice sized container. Not debating anything on here, just thought some might find it interesting. GC1HHYY

Also, based on some posters on here, I am now playing the stock market soley based on cache hides near stores. I'm going to be rich!!!! I wonder if it would be considered insider trading if I buy stock and then place a hide on the property. Oh well.

Link to comment

Encountered a cache recently suspended in a 10 foot culvert under a public road and the land owner that had cows and a barn nearby came over and asked what I was doing and got mad and said it was private property.

 

So... Culverts under a public road. State Property? City Property? or Land Owner's Property?

 

Me and the Cache Owner agreed that it would be considered State or City Property.

 

What do y'all think?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...