caches behind businesses? permission takes the fun away?

[+JL_HSTRE]

I recently came across a cache site that made me uncomfortable about the location so I left.

 

GZ on my GPS (confirmed by Google Maps) was behind a restaurant, near the back door to the kitchen. I saw no signs about trespassing, but with the restaurant somewhat boxed in by two buildings there is normally no reason for anyone to be there unless they are going to one of the back entrances.

 

However, I tend to be a rather cautious type about such things while caching - sometimes perhaps too much so.

 

I noted my discomfort and aborted search and asked if the cache had permission. The CO's response:

 

"No I did not get permission for the cache... I'm a regular there and they would most likely have no problem with the placement... But I follow the school of thought that getting permission for your cache kinda takes the whole fun out of what is a rather harmless hobby. I know others disagree with that thinking, but the cache isn't hurting anything, and like I said it might be good for business."

 

The cache is over a year old with many Finds so it would seem the CO is right about not having caused a problem.

 

So my query is:

 

1A) Does this sound like an permission issue that should be raised with the Reviewer?

1B) What are your general thoughts on when a cache close to the back of a business needs explicit permission from the owner?

 

2) Does this "permission takes the fun away" attitude make sense to anyone? Thrill from bending the law?

[+mpilchfamily]

Bottom line is if no permission has been given then the cache is place against the guidelines and should be brought to a reviewer's attention. It doesn't really matter if the cache has been there 2 days or 2 years. It sure doesn't matter if he is a regular costumer or not. Being a regular doesn't make it his property.

 

Not sure what fun is taken out of a cache that has permission. If he's referring to fear factor of getting caught doing something seemingly illegal then good riddance.

[+BlueDeuce]

Permission or not I leave when I'm not comfortable.

[+StarBrand]

Permission or not I leave when I'm not comfortable.

Me too.

 

Besides, I don't go geocaching to discover restaurant doors and surprised employees....

[knowschad]

Bottom line is if no permission has been given then the cache is place against the guidelines and should be brought to a reviewer's attention. It doesn't really matter if the cache has been there 2 days or 2 years. It sure doesn't matter if he is a regular costumer or not. Being a regular doesn't make it his property.

 

Not sure what fun is taken out of a cache that has permission. If he's referring to fear factor of getting caught doing something seemingly illegal then good riddance.

In this situation, I would have to agree with you. Just last weekend I was looking for a cache (which, as it turned out, was missing) that was also hidden behind a restaurant, right next to the back door to the kitchen (which was propped wide open). In this case, explicit permission had been granted and that fact was stated clearly on the cache page... but I still didn't feel entirely comfortable being there.

 

However, I do have a problem with your "bottom line" statement. Even the Frog Pond has stated that permission is not that cut & dried (or is it, "cut & tried"?). Permission is not black and white.

[Clan Riffster]

1A ) That's a judgement call you'd have to make yourself. It doesn't sound like the cache in question has caused any problems, but it does sound like it's been placed on private property, without even an attempt at getting permission. If you want to see how fast the worm can turn, resulting in you being branded a heretic because you questioned the permission of a cache, just take a peek at the VDOT thread. I think the locals are fixing to break out the pitchforks and torches for the guy who initiated that line of inquiry.

 

1B ) I just quoted the relevant section of the guidelines in another thread:

"Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache."

 

I interpret this to mean you need some form of permission from someone who has a controlling interest in the property. For large chain stores such as Wally World, I would argue that you don't need to go all the way up to the CEO in corporate, but you should at the very least get permission from someone in management, at that specific store. For a mom & pops business, I'd say you should get the permission from the owners themselves.

 

Groundspeak obviously disagrees with this stance.

 

2 ) A cache with proper permission is a lot more fun, for me, as I don't like the feeling that my presence may be challenged, when I have no reasonable explanation for being there other than I'm playing a game most folks have never heard of. I feel a lot better knowing I can call up the cache page and show the person questioning my activities exactly who it was that said I could be there. I realize that this is my personal bias, and that there are folks who enjoy the thrill. I just happen to not be one of them.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[+d+n.s]

Honestly, you'll fee; ;le a jerk of you tell a reviewer and post an NA. Pn the other hand, we'' A:: LOOK like jerks of there ever is a problem.

 

That said, not sure I'd have the guts to tattle... though I sorta' think it's the right way to go.

What the CO said makes zero sense and the back doors of restaurants are often considered "high risk" by employers/employees who fear robbery or assault.

At least it was when I was a teen in fast food.

 

Though situation, but a bad CO for sure.

[+A & J Tooling]

Hope no one gets shot while tampering with stuff on private property. Hate to see someone die from playing a game.

[+Towcester Pirates]

again in this situation i agree this cache is not good. But on saying that, anyone can submit a cache to be reviewed - is it the reviewer who is to blame for letting this be published?

 

google earth of even google maps in satellite view can show you quite clearly where a cache is located. you can even use street view to 'see' the area if its urban.

[Mr.Yuck]

Honestly, you'll fee; ;le a jerk of you tell a reviewer and post an NA. Pn the other hand, we'' A:: LOOK like jerks of there ever is a problem.

 

That said, not sure I'd have the guts to tattle... though I sorta' think it's the right way to go.

What the CO said makes zero sense and the back doors of restaurants are often considered "high risk" by employers/employees who fear robbery or assault.

At least it was when I was a teen in fast food.

 

Though situation, but a bad CO for sure.

 

I'm one of the radicals who think it is shameful that this game is played in thousands of parking lots in North America on private property without permission. Under what Clan Riffster just called a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" policy the other day.

 

That being said, I would NEVER report the cache you describe. I just don't roll like that. Look at the "Virginia DOT" thread to see what kind of drama can result out of "reporting" a cache.

 

And no, I have certainly never heard the "permission takes the fun away" angle. All the parking lot micro placers I've ever discussed it with just roll with the "it's open to the public" angle.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm one of the radicals who think it is shameful that this game is played in thousands of parking lots in North America on private property without permission. Under what Clan Riffster just called a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" policy the other day.

 

That being said, I would NEVER report the cache you describe. I just don't roll like that. Look at the "Virginia DOT" thread to see what kind of drama can result out of "reporting" a cache.

 

I think there's a difference between parking lot and back door, though I agree permission in this hobby is not sought as often as I personally think it should be.

 

Regarding not reporting a cache to avoid drama: would you personally never report a cache or only report one if it violated posted warnings?

[+Too Tall John]

This cache behind a business caused quite a stir. The local police declared a ban on geocaching when it first happened. That statement was, fortunately, retracted.

 

Why risk it?

[+SpaceGamer]

There is definately a subset in this game that really enjoy what I call the Urban Spy aspect. When I first got into it, it was a thrill knowing that there were all these hidden caches out there that all the normal people did not have any idea about. The first few urban hides I found had this spy movie like quality of trying to get them without being seen and giving away the location. It's exciting. A couple years later, that feeling has faded, but it's still there for me sometimes. When it happens, it makes me feel young again.

 

The real issue is adequate permission. I would probably not report this person, unless the cache looked like a bomb or something. It's not posted no tresspassing. It's a public enough place where pedestrians passing through would be okay. The CO most likely knows the owners well enough to be able to apologise convincingly should something happen. It falls just on the far side of what I would call adequate, but within the grey area that I can live with. I would probably not place a cache like this, but I would probably look for it if I was in the area with a few minutes to spare and needed a caching fix.

 

In a strictly legalistic view, it violates the guidelines. Most people, however are not strictly legalistic. To my mind this is the geocaching equivalent to driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. It's technically illegal, but everyone around here does it anyway because they are not going to get pulled over for it.

[+Too Tall John]

The CO most likely knows the owners well enough to be able to apologise convincingly should something happen.

Unfortunately, if suspicious activity is reported behind the restaurant, the owner's first call is not going to be the cache owner, it is going to be the police. While the CO might be buddy-buddy with the owner, how's their relationship with the chief? Good enough to avoid a situation like the one I sited above?

 

Any fool can learn from their own mistakes, it takes a wisdom to learn from someone else's.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm one of the radicals who think it is shameful that this game is played in thousands of parking lots in North America on private property without permission. Under what Clan Riffster just called a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" policy the other day.

 

That being said, I would NEVER report the cache you describe. I just don't roll like that. Look at the "Virginia DOT" thread to see what kind of drama can result out of "reporting" a cache.

 

I think there's a difference between parking lot and back door, though I agree permission in this hobby is not sought as often as I personally think it should be.

 

Regarding not reporting a cache to avoid drama: would you personally never report a cache or only report one if it violated posted warnings?

 

I do not believe I have ever reported a guideline violation. This would include a clown around here (long since gone inactive) who drilled holes in a few live trees for film canisters as part of multi's. In the case of the back door cache, SpaceGamer said it better than me, so I quote:

 

The real issue is adequate permission. I would probably not report this person, unless the cache looked like a bomb or something. It's not posted no tresspassing. It's a public enough place where pedestrians passing through would be okay. The CO most likely knows the owners well enough to be able to apologise convincingly should something happen. It falls just on the far side of what I would call adequate, but within the grey area that I can live with. I would probably not place a cache like this, but I would probably look for it if I was in the area with a few minutes to spare and needed a caching fix.

 

Except maybe the part about looking for it if I was in the area and needed a caching fix. Would have been on my ignore list from the day it was published just from the Google Sat view alone. I'm no Urban Spy.

[+Walts Hunting]

In the urban environment almost all caches are on private property i.e. parking lots, fence posts around the property, shrubbery on the property etc. Then there are all the ones in public parks for which no permission is obtained from the land manager. So if the permission requirement were enforced we would probably reduce the available caches to about 20 percent of what they are currently. I wouldn't report that one. If you are uncomfortable with a cache don't do it and put it on your ignore list.

 

Don't blame the reviewer. When a cache is placed the placer checks the boxes saying they have complied with all the guidelines.

[+Stargazer22]

Caches like this are the main reason I'm not a big urban cacher. Too many of them are out there without even "adequate" permission, and I don't enjoy looking for a cache while 20 suspicious soccer moms and their progeny watch me from the restaurant (or other business) windows.

 

I enjoy caches much more when I know they have permission. I don't consider the possiblility of being arrested for playing a harmless game as "fun".

[+GroveBird]

If it makes you uncomfortable, just pass on it. Lots of other caches out there to get.

Edited June 16, 2011 by GroveBird

[+GeoGeeBee]

is it the reviewer who is to blame for letting this be published?

 

 

No. When you submit a cache for publication, you check a box that says you have read and understand the guidelines. Permission is covered in the guidelines. Therefore, when you submit a cache for publication, you are stating to Groundspeak that you have permission.

 

The reviewers usually take your word for it.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In the urban environment almost all caches are on private property i.e. parking lots, fence posts around the property, shrubbery on the property etc. Then there are all the ones in public parks for which no permission is obtained from the land manager. So if the permission requirement were enforced we would probably reduce the available caches to about 20 percent of what they are currently. I wouldn't report that one. If you are uncomfortable with a cache don't do it and put it on your ignore list.

 

Don't blame the reviewer. When a cache is placed the placer checks the boxes saying they have complied with all the guidelines.

 

Me too...exactly.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

again in this situation i agree this cache is not good. But on saying that, anyone can submit a cache to be reviewed - is it the reviewer who is to blame for letting this be published?

 

GeoGeeBee's response in post #19 pretty much sums up my answer regarding permission. I'd add that reviewers don't review for quality. Even the cache turns out a plastic baggie duct taped to the inside of a garbage bin, the reviewer will still publish it as long as it adheres to the guidelines.

 

google earth of even google maps in satellite view can show you quite clearly where a cache is located. you can even use street view to 'see' the area if its urban.

 

I can show numerous examples of caches where google earth or google maps (and pretty much any site which provides satellite views) are woefully inadequate for informing a potential seeker of the cache what the area is like. There are many places in the world where the image resolution is very low, to the point that it would be impossible to identify even large buildings. I have also found a cache that was in Costa Rica that was in an area where the terrain was completely obscured by several miles of cloud cover on satellite images.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

I can show numerous examples of caches where google earth or google maps (and pretty much any site which provides satellite views) are woefully inadequate for informing a potential seeker of the cache what the area is like. There are many places in the world where the image resolution is very low, to the point that it would be impossible to identify even large buildings. I have also found a cache that was in Costa Rica that was in an area where the terrain was completely obscured by several miles of cloud cover on satellite images.

 

For that matter, there's a cache right here in Durham that's in a parking deck. Google Earth shows it as the middle of an empty field.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I can show numerous examples of caches where google earth or google maps (and pretty much any site which provides satellite views) are woefully inadequate for informing a potential seeker of the cache what the area is like. There are many places in the world where the image resolution is very low, to the point that it would be impossible to identify even large buildings. I have also found a cache that was in Costa Rica that was in an area where the terrain was completely obscured by several miles of cloud cover on satellite images.

 

For that matter, there's a cache right here in Durham that's in a parking deck. Google Earth shows it as the middle of an empty field.

 

Good point. Yes, I've seen many Google Earth high resolution area "empty fields", that are actually a Target store or something. This cache was over a year old, and in the alley behind what sounds like a long established restauraunt though, and probably would have been purged on the publication date, in my case. Never can tell though.

[+wimseyguy]

One of my favorite finds of all time was behind a business in a suburban strip mall placed with permission. The store owner allowed a fake peephole cache to be inserted into the door of his business by one of his good friends. I suspect very few would ever find it if the page didn't say it was placed with permission of the owner.

Edited June 16, 2011 by wimseyguy

[knowschad]

If it makes you uncomfortable, just pass on it. Lots of other caches out there to get.

 

Quoted from the OP:

I noted my discomfort and aborted search and asked if the cache had permission.

 

Besides, even if he hadn't said that, we are discussing a situation here, not heading out for a cache, right?

 

 

.

Edited June 16, 2011 by knowschad

[+ncfinn]

One of my favorite finds of all time was behind a business in a suburban strip mall placed with permission. The store owner allowed a fake peephole cache to be inserted into the door of his business by one of his good friends. I suspect very few would ever find it if the page didn't say it was placed with permission of the owner.

 

Aha! I bet i have tried and failed to find that one.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If it makes you uncomfortable, just pass on it. Lots of other caches out there to get.

 

Which I did.

 

But my question is not "should I pass on it because it makes me uncomfortable" but "should I report a cache like this to a Reviewer because".

 

I am not going to go scouring every cache listing I can find in search of problems. But if I do come across a cache while in the field which causes me concern then I feel it is irresponsible of me to just Ignore it unless I can conclude my discomfort is merely personal and not a Guidelines issue. The SEP Field attitude (Somebody Else's Problem) leaves caches that lead to nasty encounters with police or property owners, bomb squad calls, and black eyes for geocaching as a hobby. I don't want to be a villain, but I do want to be responsible and pro-active.

[+DanOCan]

Back before I got more picky about the caches I hunt, I was looking for a micro outside the backdoor of a restaurant I was "busted" by an employee and was told in no uncertain terms that I was not welcome in that area.

 

In that case I reported the confrontation to the cache owner who archived the cache.

 

In this case you have a cache owner who feels lacking permission adds to the excitement of the game. It's not a view I share and if the cache owner has admitted there is no permission for the cache I would report it to the reviewer.

 

That's just irresponsible cache ownership.

[knowschad]

This is a bit off-topic, but since the cache was hidden behind a restaurant, I mentioned one above that did have permission, and DanoCan just mentioned another one, I must say that I am hard-pressed to think of a worse place for a cache. Where I was, there was a huge air-conditioner running, making noise and blowing hot air on me. There was a dumpster about 15 feet from me that smelled even worse because of the hot air. There was an old, broken cooler of some sort sitting out there that had collected not only rain water, but cigarette butts and pop cans. The door to the kitchen was open, and the noise from there could be heard over the air conditioner. The place was a truck stop, so trucks were rolling by, the smell of diesel mixed with the smell of stale french fry grease.

 

The only reason I stuck it out is that the logs said that it was clever camo. It had gone missing, however, so I didn't even get that much as a reward.

[Clan Riffster]

Where I was, (icky stuff deleted)

If I ever catch the P&G fever, and decide I need to hide a cache at a restaurant, after I get permission, it will be placed out front, where the scenery is nicer. On those rare occasions I accidentally stumble upon a cache behind a restaurant, I can't help but wonder why in Gaia's name did the cache owner want to bring me here? Does he have some strange infatuation with loud noises and horrific odors?

[+popokiiti]

We found a cache at the back of a business. Great view....of a box store, 4 lanes of traffic and the lights. However, the hide was very clever which made up for it.