Gaining permission from NT to place a geocache

[+HB.]

How do I go about this? Ive got some instructions from the reviewer of my geocache but I'm still confused. Can anyone advise?

 

Thanks

HB

[Deceangi]

You need to contact the Site Manager for Permission. if you go to the NT website and do a search for that location. You'll be able to get the contact details for the Estate Office. Then you have several options or alternatively contact the Regional Office

 

You can visit the Estate Office to ask for Permission

You can telephone them to ask for permission

Email Them to ask for permission

Write a letter to them to ask for permission

 

Which ever route you take, if the person you contact is not aware of Geocaching ask them to access the INTERNAL National Trust Intranet and search for "Guidance Note RAG 10, Geocaching" which describes the Placement agreement we have with them

 

If you go down the Email/letter route the GAGB have a Formula Permission Letter available

 

The NT are highly supportive of Geocaching, and will be happy to help you arrange permission for your cache

 

 

Note of Advice for Members who have older caches on NT Property without their Permission!

 

One piece of advice for any one who has a Cache on NT property, without NT Permission (mainly those placed in the early years of Geocaching in the UK) please now obtain permission for your cache. The NT are now actively placing their own caches, and as Landowners are requiring any cache placed without their permission, blocking the publication of one of their own caches due to proximity to be removed. Where the cache has their permission, the situation is that they re-locate their cache. I'm aware of several older caches which the NT were aware of, without Permission, that the NT happily gave permission for when contacted by the Cache Owner. The NT are happy to work around any cache on their property with their permission when placing their own caches.

 

Deci

[+HB.]

You need to contact the Site Manager for Permission. if you go to the NT website and do a search for that location. You'll be able to get the contact details for the Estate Office. Then you have several options or alternatively contact the Regional Office

 

You can visit the Estate Office to ask for Permission

You can telephone them to ask for permission

Email Them to ask for permission

Write a letter to them to ask for permission

 

Which ever route you take, if the person you contact is not aware of Geocaching ask them to access the INTERNAL National Trust Intranet and search for "Guidance Note RAG 10, Geocaching" which describes the Placement agreement we have with them

 

If you go down the Email/letter route the GAGB have a Formula Permission Letter available

 

The NT are highly supportive of Geocaching, and will be happy to help you arrange permission for your cache

 

 

Note of Advice for Members who have older caches on NT Property without their Permission!

 

One piece of advice for any one who has a Cache on NT property, without NT Permission (mainly those placed in the early years of Geocaching in the UK) please now obtain permission for your cache. The NT are now actively placing their own caches, and as Landowners are requiring any cache placed without their permission, blocking the publication of one of their own caches due to proximity to be removed. Where the cache has their permission, the situation is that they re-locate their cache. I'm aware of several older caches which the NT were aware of, without Permission, that the NT happily gave permission for when contacted by the Cache Owner. The NT are happy to work around any cache on their property with their permission when placing their own caches.

 

Deci

 

Thank you, im on the case now.

[+Graculus]

If you think your cache may be on NT land and want to check then the MAGIC map will show you. Use this link to Magic MapIt! to enter your cache coordinates. For more information on using the MAGIC map the resource website for the UK.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+HB.]

If you think your cache may be on NT land and want to check then the MAGIC map will show you. Use this link to Magic MapIt! to enter your cache coordinates. For more information on using the MAGIC map the resource website for the UK.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Hi G,

It was you that advised that it was on NT grounds (Team Hedgepig caches) I just got a bit confused as there was a lot of info to take in. Have now contacted NT and waiting for a response. Also, would like to say thank you for your notes that you sent regarding what we needed to do regarding our caches. You do a good job

[+Ve8]

Note of Advice for Members who have older caches on NT Property without their Permission!

 

One piece of advice for any one who has a Cache on NT property, without NT Permission (mainly those placed in the early years of Geocaching in the UK) please now obtain permission for your cache. The NT are now actively placing their own caches, and as Landowners are requiring any cache placed without their permission, blocking the publication of one of their own caches due to proximity to be removed. Where the cache has their permission, the situation is that they re-locate their cache. I'm aware of several older caches which the NT were aware of, without Permission, that the NT happily gave permission for when contacted by the Cache Owner. The NT are happy to work around any cache on their property with their permission when placing their own caches.

 

After the recent fun and games on emCache I suspect this section was pre-prepared.

 

Related link:

http://www.emcache.com/index.php/topic,896.0.html

 

The NT are clearly looking to self promote through Geocaching and have even placed a commercial incentive for those that complete their Longshaw Trail (see: http://peakdistrict.nationaltrust.org.uk/geocaching).

 

I personally feel that the reviewers are turning a blind eye to the rules on solicitation in fear of damaging the current landowner agreement.

[Deceangi]

You'll probally not believe this but it was written on the fly as part of the initial post (so is in no way a Template post). Then cross posted to to the GAGB forum and a link to that post on Facebook afterwards.

 

The issue you've linked to, is not the first time the NT on placing their own caches, have stated that any cache in "Proximity" to any of theirs. Needs to be removed if it did not have their permission. In another case, I Disabled 3 caches and advised the Owners to request permission, to protect them from future issues. One was placed in 2003, and the NT were happy to give Permission for it , 7 years after it was placed and published.

 

The National Trust have realised the benefits of Geocaching bringing in visitors to their estates. Please remember that they Hold all properties "In Trust" for the Nation. And have Legal Restrictions placed on them that commercial interests do not. There is no profit to be made, as all funds generated, have to be plowed back into the Trust . So they are a completely Not for Profit organisation. I wonder how many actually realise that the NT is a Government QUANGO, which has been given and Operates under Charitable Status, and has to meet the legal requirements of the Charity Commissioners .

 

So personally I would not say the NT are promoting a Commercial Agenda, especially as it's possible to Walk In To, many of their estates for free, via RoW's that cross the estates.

 

At the end of the day, it is all about working with a Landowner, who is highly supportive of Geocaching. Your chosen location not suitable? Then the Estate Manager has to suggest suitable alternatives (that's their own internal rules) so I do not believe we can find a more supportive Landowner. One who is ignoring many caches on their properties without their permission. even though they know about them! So no we are not frightened of damaging the current Agreement with them, just being as supportive to them as they are to us as a community! It's producing a WIN-Win situation for both them and us.

 

Deci

[reelcutter]

I would just like to say that I think the NT are great I have a few on NT land and they couldn't have been more accomodating, as long as you are upfront about it all and are sensitive to any impact caching my have on the enviroment around the cache site you shouldn't have any trouble. After all we place caches at these sites because we love them and we want to share them with others just like bodies like the NT do.

[+dave-harris]

I would also say the NT are great places to visit, many have large grounds that are free to walk around and are a good place to leave the car and go caching. Return later for a drink and maybe something to eat in the restaurant. And all the years I've been a member i have never met anyone who has been rude or unhelpful.

[+Ve8]

The National Trust have realised the benefits of Geocaching bringing in visitors to their estates. Please remember that they Hold all properties "In Trust" for the Nation. And have Legal Restrictions placed on them that commercial interests do not. There is no profit to be made, as all funds generated, have to be plowed back into the Trust . So they are a completely Not for Profit organisation. I wonder how many actually realise that the NT is a Government QUANGO, which has been given and Operates under Charitable Status, and has to meet the legal requirements of the Charity Commissioners .

So this excludes them entirely?

 

Not much of a balance when others would be shot down for mentioning a pub or restaurant, let alone the fact they serve food.

 

Surely these rules are in place to stop organisations who may have "realised the benefits of Geocaching"? Any other UK charity that tried this would not stand a chance on starting a project such as this.

 

Is this Groundspeaks official stance?

[Deceangi]

The National Trust have realised the benefits of Geocaching bringing in visitors to their estates. Please remember that they Hold all properties "In Trust" for the Nation. And have Legal Restrictions placed on them that commercial interests do not. There is no profit to be made, as all funds generated, have to be plowed back into the Trust . So they are a completely Not for Profit organisation. I wonder how many actually realise that the NT is a Government QUANGO, which has been given and Operates under Charitable Status, and has to meet the legal requirements of the Charity Commissioners .

So this excludes them entirely?

 

Not much of a balance when others would be shot down for mentioning a pub or restaurant, let alone the fact they serve food.

 

Surely these rules are in place to stop organisations who may have "realised the benefits of Geocaching"? Any other UK charity that tried this would not stand a chance on starting a project such as this.

 

Is this Groundspeaks official stance?

 

As your appear to have a major issue with NT owned caches, please take the issue up directly with Groundspeak.

 

Deci

[+Ve8]

I'll take that as a no then.

 

On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

[+keehotee]

I'll take that as a no then.

 

On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

 

Why?

Are you trying to get NT caches banned? Or do you want more - as you see them - commercial caches allowed?

Edited April 7, 2011 by keehotee

[Neath Worthies]

I'll take that as a no then.

 

On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

 

Why?

Are you trying to get NT caches banned? Or do you want more - as you see them - commercial caches allowed?

As I read it Ve8 was alluding to Groundspeak's well known attitude to charities and their general reluctance to allow them to be mentioned in cache descriptions. Deceangi specifically stated that in the case of NT caches their charitable status was a reason for ALLOWING them to be involved in Geocaching. Surely this is something that needs clarifying for the UK Geocaching community.

 

For the record I am a supporter of the National Trust and I am delighted that

a) the NT are supporting Geocaching

they are happy to allow existing caches to be granted permission, even years after being placed

c) Groundspeak are willing to work with a charity in this way

 

But in my view this highlights a major inconsistency in Groundspeak's attitude towards charities. Ve8 was politely asking if there had been a change and who better to answer this than Deceangi who as the UK's longest serving reviewer must surely have the "ear" of Groundspeak.

[+keehotee]

I'll take that as a no then.

 

On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

 

Why?

Are you trying to get NT caches banned? Or do you want more - as you see them - commercial caches allowed?

As I read it Ve8 was alluding to Groundspeak's well known attitude to charities and their general reluctance to allow them to be mentioned in cache descriptions. Deceangi specifically stated that in the case of NT caches their charitable status was a reason for ALLOWING them to be involved in Geocaching. Surely this is something that needs clarifying for the UK Geocaching community.

 

For the record I am a supporter of the National Trust and I am delighted that

a) the NT are supporting Geocaching

they are happy to allow existing caches to be granted permission, even years after being placed

c) Groundspeak are willing to work with a charity in this way

 

But in my view this highlights a major inconsistency in Groundspeak's attitude towards charities. Ve8 was politely asking if there had been a change and who better to answer this than Deceangi who as the UK's longest serving reviewer must surely have the "ear" of Groundspeak.

 

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

[+Mad H@ter]

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

I don't belive that the issue is with permissions, I think that it is to do with NT placing there own caches and allegedly using them to solicit geocachers on to their property to use their facilities.

[+MartyBartfast]

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

I don't belive that the issue is with permissions, I think that it is to do with NT placing there own caches and allegedly using them to solicit geocachers on to their property to use their facilities.

 

Shouldn't the same rules apply as apply to pubs? i.e. they can place the cache but can't recommend or name the tea room, or for that matter the name of the property if it charges for entry.

 

The fact that NT is a charity shouldn't come into it.

 

FWIW I've been an NT member for 20+ years.

Edited April 7, 2011 by MartyBartfast

[+keehotee]

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

I don't belive that the issue is with permissions, I think that it is to do with NT placing there own caches and allegedly using them to solicit geocachers on to their property to use their facilities.

Ah yes - makes a bit more sense now.

Good job there aren't any publican cachers hosting events on their own premises then..... (now there's an idea.... )

[Deceangi]

My point about the NT being a charity was to argue V8's comments about it being Commercial. You will find caches have been published in other "Not For Profit" locations, ones which are not NT owned.

 

I believe Ve8 has a issue with the NT due to a East Midlands cache being Archived, at the request of the NT to allow a cache they had submitted to be published. The cache being Archived as it did not have their Permission, and they as landowners exercised their rights as Landowners to have it removed. Which is why I made the post about caches without NT Permission, needing to obtain it.

 

Also to be completely open about those taking part in this discussion Ve8 is the owner and web master of both emCache and icache (he's clearly identified as so on all posts he makes on GAGB Forum). So has a huge interest about what goes on in the East Midlands. Which is why he linked to the emCache forum.

 

Deci

[+Pharisee]

Wouldn't it be great if ANYONE could get a cache archived just because it's in a spot that they want to use for one of their own caches.

[+keehotee]

Wouldn't it be great if ANYONE could get a cache archived just because it's in a spot that they want to use for one of their own caches.

 

Presumably any landowning cacher could - if the original cache had been put on their land without permission

[Deceangi]

Wouldn't it be great if ANYONE could get a cache archived just because it's in a spot that they want to use for one of their own caches.

 

John the issue being that the cache did not have Landowner Permission, if it had the NT would have been requested to relocate their cache. Whilst Reviewers will comply with any Landowner request to Archive a cache, even if it's to allow them to place their own cache. If the Owner of that cache has Landowner Permission, it puts us on a stronger footing, as we can initially refuse to Publish, pointing out that the cache has permission and as such they should know where it is located and have suitably placed their own cache.

 

One thing the National Agreement has been in affect for a extended period, and thats allowed CO's with caches on NT land sufficient time to obtain permission. The East Midlands cache was the second incident of a NT submitted caches being placed in a location where there were Published caches without Permission. In the first case, no proximity arouse. But to protect those caches for the future, I disabled them and requested the owners obtain NT Permission, something the NT were happy to give. One cache had been active since 2003.

 

So the NT are not out to kill caches placed with their Permission, they will just not change their plans for caches placed without their permission. At the end of the day it's to do with respect. A cache owner by obtaining their permission is gaining their respect having shown them respect by asking for permission, a cache owner placing a cache without their permission is showing no respect to them, and as such the NT will not show any respect in turn.

 

Deci

[+Ve8]

My point about the NT being a charity was to argue V8's comments about it being Commercial. You will find caches have been published in other "Not For Profit" locations, ones which are not NT owned.

Caches being published in non profit locations are not the issue, its when the landowners place them to self promote.

 

I believe Ve8 has a issue with the NT due to a East Midlands cache being Archived, at the request of the NT to allow a cache they had submitted to be published. The cache being Archived as it did not have their Permission, and they as landowners exercised their rights as Landowners to have it removed. Which is why I made the post about caches without NT Permission, needing to obtain it.

Straying a little OT - Permission or no permission the landowner has a right to request the cache removal. But in this case the offending cache was archived first and then the CO was informed they could relocate in the same area with permission. IIRC the cache was archived, the CO was sent a note then the new NT cache was published all in the matter of a few mins. Its the way it was handled I take issue with, surely the CO could have been given a chance to relocate or at least respond.

[+Andalusite]

Its the way it was handled I take issue with, surely the CO could have been given a chance to...respond.

 

The cache was archived because it did not have Landowner Permission and was blocking the publication of a new cache (belonging to the landowner) which did have Landowner Permission.

 

The guidelines are clear in this regard;

 

"If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived."

 

see also;

 

"If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect their wishes, support their request and take action."

 

and;

 

"A cache may be ...archived if...Placement does not meet all guidelines." (if, for example, the cache does not have permission.)

 

Its the way it was handled I take issue with, surely the CO could have been given a chance to relocate....

 

...the CO was informed they could relocate in the same area with permission...

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

Edited April 7, 2011 by Andalusite

[+pklong]

Ve8,

 

It's just lunch boxes in hedges, not world peace. Also it's the National Trust, not McDonalds.

 

I like caching on National Trust properties. If we start being awkward they could easily turn around and require that all caches on their properties be archived. I think that would be a great shame as they are exactly the places I like to go caching. Remember they are guidelines not hard and fast rules and I think that we need to be pragmatic in this case.

 

Philip

[Neath Worthies]

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

In my book there is very little difference, and I think both organisations should be encouraged. My only concern is the apparent inconsistency towards charities and other non-profit making bodies which in general are stamped on severely should they get mentioned in cache descriptions.

 

To be crystal clear (I hope!) and to avoid misunderstanding I believe charities, including the NT, should be welcomed in Geocaching not discouraged by TPTB.

 

H

[+The Blorenges]

So how do they differ from caches placed "with the permission of the Forestry Commission" - or even by the FC themselves? Apart from the FC not being a charity?

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly don't understand the issue.

In my book there is very little difference, and I think both organisations should be encouraged. My only concern is the apparent inconsistency towards charities and other non-profit making bodies which in general are stamped on severely should they get mentioned in cache descriptions.

 

To be crystal clear (I hope!) and to avoid misunderstanding I believe charities, including the NT, should be welcomed in Geocaching not discouraged by TPTB.

 

H

 

As I understand it, the way it works is that there are no charity/agenda/non-profit-making-organisations/promotions allowed without prior discussion and agreement with Groundspeak.

 

Over on the GAGB forum there's topic relating to a planned charity walk with added geocaches where Groundspeak have given the green light to the project.

 

MrsB

Edited April 7, 2011 by The Blorenges

[+cats-eyes]

Wouldn't it be great if ANYONE could get a cache archived just because it's in a spot that they want to use for one of their own caches.

 

John the issue being that the cache did not have Landowner Permission, if it had the NT would have been requested to relocate their cache. Whilst Reviewers will comply with any Landowner request to Archive a cache, even if it's to allow them to place their own cache. If the Owner of that cache has Landowner Permission, it puts us on a stronger footing, as we can initially refuse to Publish, pointing out that the cache has permission and as such they should know where it is located and have suitably placed their own cache.

 

One thing the National Agreement has been in affect for a extended period, and thats allowed CO's with caches on NT land sufficient time to obtain permission. The East Midlands cache was the second incident of a NT submitted caches being placed in a location where there were Published caches without Permission. In the first case, no proximity arouse. But to protect those caches for the future, I disabled them and requested the owners obtain NT Permission, something the NT were happy to give. One cache had been active since 2003.

 

So the NT are not out to kill caches placed with their Permission, they will just not change their plans for caches placed without their permission. At the end of the day it's to do with respect. A cache owner by obtaining their permission is gaining their respect having shown them respect by asking for permission, a cache owner placing a cache without their permission is showing no respect to them, and as such the NT will not show any respect in turn.

 

Deci

We think a little respect on NT's behalf wouldn't go amiss seeing as we have in the last few years placed caches in and around the Peak District probably bringing in thousands of visitors.

We only adopted the cache not knowing if it had permission or not, but back in the day it wasn't needed so all we can say is it's down to Geocaching to inform future adoptees that the cache needs permission if it's on NT managed land or other managed land.

Edited April 7, 2011 by cats-eyes

[reelcutter]

Why was a cache hidden then published without the landowners consent in the first place.

[Deceangi]

I'll take that as a no then.

 

On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

 

As per the request in your Needs Archived log, the caches and the log were referred to Groundspeak. Their reply is that the caches are a way to "build good relationships with land managers". And as such there is no reason to Archive the caches.

 

The Publish logs are going to be amended to add that they have been published with the permission of Groundspeak. And the Needs Archived logs deleted.

 

Why was a cache hidden then published without the landowners consent in the first place.

 

Caches are reviewed and published on a Permission is Presumed basis, unless the Reviewer has a reason to query permission due to there being a Landowner Agreement, or it being a location where Proof of permission to Publish is required.

 

Each cache owner on submitting a cache confirms that they have "Adequate Permission" when submitting their caches for Review. And as such they are trusted to have adequate permission. That Trust does not remove the need, to actually have Permission at any time. This has been the situation for at least as long as I have been a Member (2002)

 

Deci

[+dave-harris]

I just want to go out there, walk, find a cache or two. I do not have any issue with who hides them. I welcome people from the National Trust, Forestry Commission, or any other organization hiding caches on their land. You will find these are mostly better maintained. In the county where i live the county council hide caches in their country parks, some are ingenious, and a are pleasure to hunt.

 

Guidelines here are very clear, people at the NT, etc are being very fair in the way they treat caches that do not have their official permission.