Legality or common sense?

[+thebruce0]

What knowshad said. Also,

 

It's not about getting ownership, it's about trusting that the cache owner has been granted ownership.

I'm thinking you meant permission. Ownership is real easy to figure out.

uh, yeah. derp.

 

Copy/paste the coords into Google Earth, and (if it's in a parking garage), there will be a big honking building at ground zero. At that point, the Reviewer has a choice to make, just as they do when Google Earth shows ground zero in a parking lot. Either the Reviewer cares about the guidelines which state cache owners will get permission for hides on private property, or they do not. If they do care, they will try to establish who owns the building/parking lot. There are tools available that can accomplish this (locally) with just a few clicks.

 

If they don't care, they'll just hit the "Publish" button.

Again, the point, demonstrated here, is that there is no guarantee any geocacher will know that adequate permission was granted, let alone that it was published with said permission with the knowledge of the reviewer. Which is why many geocachers will post a note or draw reviewer attention if they have concerns about the legitimacy or legality of a hide.

So, as a CO, the best option to avoid all that drama is to be transparent about property permissions.

 

That would be a very tidy solution, and if you added who gave that permission to your suggestion, it would then meet the guidelines. But those hiders who don't care about the guidelines won't add that line, and those Reviewers who don't care about the guidelines, won't require it.

Exactly

[+sbell111]

I won't add that line because I have no interest in having a thousand Mrs Kravitz' bugging my contact to verify the information, thereby pissing him off and getting permission rescinded.

[Clan Riffster]

It's not about getting ownership, it's about trusting that the cache owner has been granted ownership.

I'm thinking you meant permission. Ownership is real easy to figure out.

Copy/paste the coords into Google Earth, and (if it's in a parking garage), there will be a big honking building at ground zero. At that point, the Reviewer has a choice to make, just as they do when Google Earth shows ground zero in a parking lot. Either the Reviewer cares about the guidelines which state cache owners will get permission for hides on private property, or they do not. If they do care, they will try to establish who owns the building/parking lot. There are tools available that can accomplish this (locally) with just a few clicks.

 

If they don't care, they'll just hit the "Publish" button.

 

I think the times may be changing a bit, but generally, the reviewers, right or wrong, trust the person placing the hide, and assume that when they checked the box that said that they read the guidelines, that they were also agreeing that they believed they had adequate permission for the hide.

I agree, wholeheartedly. It just strikes me as somewhat backward. If I hide a cache on St John's River Water Management District land, (which is public land, paid for by my tax dollars, and designated for my recreation), and I check the little box that claims I have adequate permission for my hide, My Reviewer will not publish the cache until I can demonstrate that, for that cache, adequate equals explicit. But if I hide a cache on what my Reviewer knows, beyond a doubt, is private property, (such as my nearby Wally World parking lot), checking that little box is perfectly acceptable, even though the guidelines say otherwise.

 

Just struck me as odd.

 

I've oft asked myself why caches hidden on private property, (including those hides where the Reviewer knows it is on private property), are not subject to the same scrutiny as those caches hidden on public lands. I never have reached what I would consider to be a satisfactory answer.

[knowschad]

It's not about getting ownership, it's about trusting that the cache owner has been granted ownership.

I'm thinking you meant permission. Ownership is real easy to figure out.

Copy/paste the coords into Google Earth, and (if it's in a parking garage), there will be a big honking building at ground zero. At that point, the Reviewer has a choice to make, just as they do when Google Earth shows ground zero in a parking lot. Either the Reviewer cares about the guidelines which state cache owners will get permission for hides on private property, or they do not. If they do care, they will try to establish who owns the building/parking lot. There are tools available that can accomplish this (locally) with just a few clicks.

 

If they don't care, they'll just hit the "Publish" button.

 

I think the times may be changing a bit, but generally, the reviewers, right or wrong, trust the person placing the hide, and assume that when they checked the box that said that they read the guidelines, that they were also agreeing that they believed they had adequate permission for the hide.

I agree, wholeheartedly. It just strikes me as somewhat backward. If I hide a cache on St John's River Water Management District land, (which is public land, paid for by my tax dollars, and designated for my recreation), and I check the little box that claims I have adequate permission for my hide, My Reviewer will not publish the cache until I can demonstrate that, for that cache, adequate equals explicit. But if I hide a cache on what my Reviewer knows, beyond a doubt, is private property, (such as my nearby Wally World parking lot), checking that little box is perfectly acceptable, even though the guidelines say otherwise.

 

Just struck me as odd.

 

I've oft asked myself why caches hidden on private property, (including those hides where the Reviewer knows it is on private property), are not subject to the same scrutiny as those caches hidden on public lands. I never have reached what I would consider to be a satisfactory answer.

 

I'm guessing that the St John's River Water Management District either has a published policy or has had contact with Groundspeak about caches. Am I right?

[Clan Riffster]

I'm guessing that the St John's River Water Management District either has a published policy or has had contact with Groundspeak about caches. Am I right?

You are absolutely right! (Them there spectacle wearin' pooches are pretty dern smart!) It still strikes me as odd. If I check the box saying I have adequate permission for a hide on SJRWMD properties, why doesn't the Reviewer take my word for it, and assume I have obtained a permit for my hide? Instead, I must proffer proof, lest my cache remain unpublished. This is for a hide on public land, specifically set aside for my recreational purposes. But the same container, plopped under a bush at Wally World, which is most definitely private property, will be published on faith that my claim of permission is truthful, even though the guidelines specifically say otherwise.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who finds that quirky?

[knowschad]

I'm guessing that the St John's River Water Management District either has a published policy or has had contact with Groundspeak about caches. Am I right?

You are absolutely right! (Them there spectacle wearin' pooches are pretty dern smart!) It still strikes me as odd. If I check the box saying I have adequate permission for a hide on SJRWMD properties, why doesn't the Reviewer take my word for it, and assume I have obtained a permit for my hide? Instead, I must proffer proof, lest my cache remain unpublished. This is for a hide on public land, specifically set aside for my recreational purposes. But the same container, plopped under a bush at Wally World, which is most definitely private property, will be published on faith that my claim of permission is truthful, even though the guidelines specifically say otherwise.

 

Maybe I'm the only one who finds that quirky?

 

Not at all. SJRWMD has made their policy public. Walmart has not. Your reviewer know what SJRWM's policy is. He/she does not (*cough*) know what Walmart's policy is. Really... they don't. Walmart has never, to the best of my knowledge, made a public policy, so your reviewer can only guess.

[Clan Riffster]

Not at all. SJRWMD has made their policy public. Walmart has not.

Which doesn't help my feeble brain grasp such complex concepts. I know SJRWMD requires permits for geocaches. Not complaining, as I have a good working relationship with Peter Henn, who issues those permits. His office is in my patrol area, so I have the opportunity to pop in and chat when I need clarification on something. My Reviewer also knows the policy. I have no complaints about that end of my quirky little quandary.

 

Where I end up scratching my head is when it comes to the other end. Both myself and my Reviewer know that Walmart is private property. We also both know that the guidelines are quite specific regarding caches hidden on private property. According to the guidelines, you not only need to obtain permission for hides on private property, you must also post something to this effect on the cache page.

 

Again, no worries up to this point.

 

Where my poor grey matter melts is the glaring discrepancy between how private and public property are treated.

 

Private property hides are published based on faith.

 

Public property hides, (which incorporate a policy regarding geocaching), are not published on faith.

 

I get it. It's me. I know... All I can do is shrug...

[jholly]

It's not about getting ownership, it's about trusting that the cache owner has been granted ownership.

I'm thinking you meant permission. Ownership is real easy to figure out.

Copy/paste the coords into Google Earth, and (if it's in a parking garage), there will be a big honking building at ground zero. At that point, the Reviewer has a choice to make, just as they do when Google Earth shows ground zero in a parking lot. Either the Reviewer cares about the guidelines which state cache owners will get permission for hides on private property, or they do not. If they do care, they will try to establish who owns the building/parking lot. There are tools available that can accomplish this (locally) with just a few clicks.

 

If they don't care, they'll just hit the "Publish" button.

 

I think the times may be changing a bit, but generally, the reviewers, right or wrong, trust the person placing the hide, and assume that when they checked the box that said that they read the guidelines, that they were also agreeing that they believed they had adequate permission for the hide.

I agree, wholeheartedly. It just strikes me as somewhat backward. If I hide a cache on St John's River Water Management District land, (which is public land, paid for by my tax dollars, and designated for my recreation), and I check the little box that claims I have adequate permission for my hide, My Reviewer will not publish the cache until I can demonstrate that, for that cache, adequate equals explicit. But if I hide a cache on what my Reviewer knows, beyond a doubt, is private property, (such as my nearby Wally World parking lot), checking that little box is perfectly acceptable, even though the guidelines say otherwise.

 

Just struck me as odd.

 

I've oft asked myself why caches hidden on private property, (including those hides where the Reviewer knows it is on private property), are not subject to the same scrutiny as those caches hidden on public lands. I never have reached what I would consider to be a satisfactory answer.

I got one for you. A recent hide was made on the reservation I live on. Granted it is a business run by the Tribe's business arm, but tribal land. Nothing about permission. I thought reservation land was private land. I write the publishing reviewer and his response is "I'll raise your concerns with the cache owner" I guess this falls under the Wally World rule. Maybe next time I'm down in Arizona or New Mexico I'll drop a couple on the Navajo reservation as see if they get published.

[+Sagefox]

Again, no worries up to this point.

 

I get it. You are making a statement, not a rant. Hopefully my response will be viewed similarly.

 

Where my poor grey matter melts is the glaring discrepancy between how private and public property are treated. Private property hides are published based on faith.

 

Public property hides, (which incorporate a policy regarding geocaching), are not published on faith.

 

As you point out, some public agencies and perhaps some private companies become aware of geocaching and develop policies regarding cache placement. These agencies are the exception and are being treated differently.

 

The others are simply in the larger group of entities that have not requested specific permissions. I see no need for reviewers to apply the same standards when listing these caches.

 

I think concerns about cache placement should, wherever possible, be dealt with on an individual basis: cache owner integrity, reviewers' noses conditioned to sniff out problems with the individual listings, and secondarily, the cache searchers who can make comments or even report specific problem cache placements.

 

That some entities request special treatment does not, in my opinion, mean we need to treat all cache placements with the same policies just for the sake of consistency.