"Indicate Permission Granted"...

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

From the guidelines (bold mine):

 

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

 

For those caches clearly on private property (such as malls, WalMarts, Home Depots, etc) will this ever be enforced?

[+J the Goat]

Doubt it.

[Mr.Yuck]

From the guidelines (bold mine):

 

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

 

For those caches clearly on private property (such as malls, WalMarts, Home Depots, etc) will this ever be enforced?

 

See what I added in a larger font size to what you had already bolded. They really need another instance of the word adequate in there. Seeing as the use of that word is what people use to excuse the fact that the overwhelming majority of the types of hides you indicate in parenthesis have no permission whatsoever. I'm not talking about the reviewers, I'm talking about the "defenders" around here.

[+Mudfrog]

The thing is, the word "adequate" should mean something. When it comes to geocaching, it doesn't.

 

Sure, a business's parking lot is open to the public to use,,, when the public actually uses it (parks their vehicle there) to conduct business at that business. I would just about guarantee you that hiding and finding a geocache, lifting up or dismantling a light pole skirt, and looking suspicious when moving in and out from between cars in that parking lot, is not what most business owners want. From what i see, there is no permission obtained whatsoever, explicit, adequate, or implied, for most of these hides.

 

GC.com may not be totally responsible for how people hide and find caches but it's easy to see that they look the other way when this issue is brought up. Because of this, i figure it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit comes up against GC.com and/or geocaching get's another black eye. So yes, i feel that it will be enforced sooner or later.

[+jellis]

Sometimes our Reviewers will ask if it looks like it is too close to a building. CO's should even mention even if it's on their own property that they have permission. Some cachers feel uncomfortable enough going into someone's property and wondering if they are on the right one.

Edited May 3, 2012 by jellis

[+niraD]

I've already indicated that my geocaches on private property have adequate permission by listing them here. (Actually, they have explicit permission, but that's beside the point.) Would adding boilerplate text to the descriptions stating that I have adequate permission really change anything?

 

If owners are hiding caches without adequate permission (despite indicating that they meet the guidelines, including the guidelines about adequate permission), then what's to stop them from adding the same boilerplate text to their descriptions?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If owners are hiding caches without adequate permission (despite indicating that they meet the guidelines, including the guidelines about adequate permission), then what's to stop them from adding the same boilerplate text to their descriptions?

 

Nothing. However, if they run into issues (such as property owners contacting GS), perhaps GS can then restrict them from hiding in the future (or at least put a tighter reign on them).

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

If owners are hiding caches without adequate permission (despite indicating that they meet the guidelines, including the guidelines about adequate permission), then what's to stop them from adding the same boilerplate text to their descriptions?

 

Nothing. However, if they run into issues (such as property owners contacting GS), perhaps GS can then restrict them from hiding in the future (or at least put a tighter reign on them).

Puppet accounts, etc.

 

Unless townships start banning GC and monitoring the site, there's just not much that can be done (that I can think of).

[+J the Goat]

If owners are hiding caches without adequate permission (despite indicating that they meet the guidelines, including the guidelines about adequate permission), then what's to stop them from adding the same boilerplate text to their descriptions?

 

Nothing. However, if they run into issues (such as property owners contacting GS), perhaps GS can then restrict them from hiding in the future (or at least put a tighter reign on them).

Puppet accounts, etc.

 

Unless townships start banning GC and monitoring the site, there's just not much that can be done (that I can think of).

 

It's actually a simple solution. If the cache is private property, require the submission of contact information for the person giving the permission. The reviewers wouldn't even have to use it, just requiring the submission would deter lots of bad hides that clearly don't have the permission of anyone resposible for the area. If there's no contact info, no cachee publishee.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

It's actually a simple solution. If the cache is private property, require the submission of contact information for the person giving the permission. The reviewers wouldn't even have to use it, just requiring the submission would deter lots of bad hides that clearly don't have the permission of anyone resposible for the area. If there's no contact info, no cachee publishee.

 

+1.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The thing is, the word "adequate" should mean something. When it comes to geocaching, it doesn't.

 

Sure, a business's parking lot is open to the public to use,,, when the public actually uses it (parks their vehicle there) to conduct business at that business. I would just about guarantee you that hiding and finding a geocache, lifting up or dismantling a light pole skirt, and looking suspicious when moving in and out from between cars in that parking lot, is not what most business owners want. From what i see, there is no permission obtained whatsoever, explicit, adequate, or implied, for most of these hides.

 

Even if explicit permission is obtained, sent to the reviewer, and mentioned on the cache page, because the parking lot is subject to public use, it isn't the business owner that's going to call the cops when someone is acting suspicious in the parking lot. It's more likely a patron of the business that has no idea what geocaching is about or an LEO that happens to see someone acting suspicious.

[+niraD]

It's actually a simple solution. If the cache is private property, require the submission of contact information for the person giving the permission. The reviewers wouldn't even have to use it, just requiring the submission would deter lots of bad hides that clearly don't have the permission of anyone resposible for the area. If there's no contact info, no cachee publishee.

So in addition to allowing me to place the geocache, property managers must also be willing for me to share their contact information with another party (Groundspeak)?

[+StarBrand]

It remains a simple fact that some private property owners have granted some form of conditional permission. Something like "sure go ahead - as long as they do not create any issues". Or "as long as it doesn't disturb anybody". Or "As long as it isn't a safety issue". As soon as the condition is violated, all bets are off. The hider may have well conformed to these conditions but the seekers sometimes do not. No sense in punishing the hider when some of these issues happen 2 years after placement.

[knowschad]

From the guidelines (bold mine):

 

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

 

For those caches clearly on private property (such as malls, WalMarts, Home Depots, etc) will this ever be enforced?

 

See what I added in a larger font size to what you had already bolded. They really need another instance of the word adequate in there. Seeing as the use of that word is what people use to excuse the fact that the overwhelming majority of the types of hides you indicate in parenthesis have no permission whatsoever. I'm not talking about the reviewers, I'm talking about the "defenders" around here.

So, in other words, if you have inadequate permission, there is no need to indicate it?

[knowschad]

If owners are hiding caches without adequate permission (despite indicating that they meet the guidelines, including the guidelines about adequate permission), then what's to stop them from adding the same boilerplate text to their descriptions?

 

Nothing. However, if they run into issues (such as property owners contacting GS), perhaps GS can then restrict them from hiding in the future (or at least put a tighter reign on them).

That is already the case, as well. I think that all the change to the guidelines does is to re-enforce the point.

[+J the Goat]

It's actually a simple solution. If the cache is private property, require the submission of contact information for the person giving the permission. The reviewers wouldn't even have to use it, just requiring the submission would deter lots of bad hides that clearly don't have the permission of anyone resposible for the area. If there's no contact info, no cachee publishee.

So in addition to allowing me to place the geocache, property managers must also be willing for me to share their contact information with another party (Groundspeak)?

 

To cut down on caches placed without permission, I'd say yes. It might deter some property/business owners from allowing caches, but I think that's a fair concession on our part to help prevent caches placed with no permission at all.

 

For many instances, it could be something along the lines of "The business this cache is placed at is XXX, their phone number is 123-4567. Jon gave permission.

 

Or "property owner's name is John Smith, permission given as long as no future problems caused. I can contact if necessary"

 

Like I said, contact doesn't even have to be made/attempted by the reviewers, just more than an assumption that because you're placing a cache then you've gotten permission. I'd be willing to bet that if something simple like this were required, just it's presence would drastically lower the number of caches we see that are thrown out without asking anybody if it's okay.

 

Of course there are plenty of holes in my idea, but at least it's an idea that's both feesible and constructive in trying to fix a problem. I'm also pretty much certain it won't get instituted, it's just my thought on the subject.

[+ohmelli]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

[Keystone]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

We all do, to one extent or another. I ask whenever the circumstances make it unreasonable for me to assume that adequate permission is in place. I've asked two cache hiders that question just today.

 

Some CO's never respond, which probably means they didn't have *any* permission. Some use the "public property" argument. ("You say it's on the right of way between the street and the sidewalk? OK. Then the proper party to give permission might be the highway department rather than the owner of the front yard where you hid your cache.") Others respond with permission details. Often this is disclosed privately; I wish more would say "this cache was hidden with permission" right on their cache page. You might be surprised by how many hiders actually DO ask the store owner, homeowner, etc.

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

[knowschad]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

 

Your hide is in a State Park, correct? Odds are they require explicit permission and your reviewer knows that.

[Keystone]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

 

Your hide is in a State Park, correct? Odds are they require explicit permission and your reviewer knows that.

Looking at the pre-publication dialogue with the reviewer, that's exactly how it went down. The Maryland State Parks were among the earliest land managers to adopt a permission policy.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

 

Trackinthebox is still going to contact Wal-Mart corporate HQ and have them banned. It's just taking him a while. Six years, actually.

 

Don't pee in this boy's Cheerios, Keystone

[+Mudfrog]

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

 

Trackinthebox is still going to contact Wal-Mart corporate HQ and have them banned. It's just taking him a while. Six years, actually.

 

Don't pee in this boy's Cheerios, Keystone

 

What's Walmart's number? I'll hollar at em and speed things up... []

 

edited to ask: why are brackets needed to insert a smilie when i post a log but not needed here on the forums?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mudfrog

[+J the Goat]

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

 

Trackinthebox is still going to contact Wal-Mart corporate HQ and have them banned. It's just taking him a while. Six years, actually.

 

Don't pee in this boy's Cheerios, Keystone

 

I just read that entire thread. Man, am I bummed out that I missed out on that one...

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

 

Trackinthebox is still going to contact Wal-Mart corporate HQ and have them banned. It's just taking him a while. Six years, actually.

 

Don't pee in this boy's Cheerios, Keystone

 

I just read that entire thread. Man, am I bummed out that I missed out on that one...

 

Same here. Wow. Did he ever call Walmart??

[+The A-Team]

Same here. Wow. Did he ever call Walmart??

I couldn't help but read it, too! I just had to see how it ended. Based on what I've seen out there, he never made that call, or if he did, they laughed in his face.

7 pages in just under 14 hours. That was a really active thread!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I don't ask all the time, though. Since lots of Wal-Mart caches are hidden with permission, I'm not going to make any assumptions about the others. If Wal-Mart had a corporate geocaching policy, we would all follow it. When's the last time you saw a new "Off Your Rocker" cache since Cracker Barrel adopted its ban on caches?

 

Trackinthebox is still going to contact Wal-Mart corporate HQ and have them banned. It's just taking him a while. Six years, actually.

 

Don't pee in this boy's Cheerios, Keystone

 

What's Walmart's number? I'll hollar at em and speed things up... []

 

edited to ask: why are brackets needed to insert a smilie when i post a log but not needed here on the forums?

 

I hate that bracket thing. Done if a few times myself, have seen other people "mess up" here as well.

 

Well, I wasn't expecting 4 consecutive responses on Trackinthebox's meltdown. I'm sure he never called. He was banned by the end of that thread though, and a week or so later asked in the Navicache forums if anyone was interested in joining a class-action lawsuit against Groundspeak. I think myself and the Navicache admin were the only two replies, and we both said no.

[+ohmelli]

I don't "like" LPCs... and others like that... I've found them, and due to my circumstances sometimes that's what I'm limited to if I feel like caching. (full time keeper of my demented/wheelchair bound MIL) But I absolutely REFUSE to ever hide one! The problem I find in the area I live... I'm on a peninsula and there is a TON of open land ... but it's almost all privately owned with NO TRESSPASSING posted EVERYWHERE!!! I've driven all over this county looking for *new* places to hide caches. When I look on the map there is far more 'unchached' area than there is cached area. The areas that do have caches have a fair amount of them. Enough that I'm not anxious to put another there "just to put one". I'm really itching to place some... but having a heck of a time FINDING places. I find myself saying "ohhhh maybe I'll just put one in 'that' park..." that already has 5 or 6 or 10 in it! But that's not really what I want. And I don't want to put them too far from home because I DO want to be able to maintain them properly. I'm wondering if I write my reviewer if HE would share some places he knows that could USE a cache! Would that be a good idea?

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Well, I wasn't expecting 4 consecutive responses on Trackinthebox's meltdown. I'm sure he never called. He was banned by the end of that thread though, and a week or so later asked in the Navicache forums if anyone was interested in joining a class-action lawsuit against Groundspeak. I think myself and the Navicache admin were the only two replies, and we both said no.

 

ROFL about the class-action lawsuit.

 

OT: I couldn't help notice that Trackinthebox tended to talk to himself once things really started not going his way. As in "Hey Track, what happened that made you shut down _____ I was gonna do that one next week?" I've noticed this type of post from other seemingly irrational people on other forums. Is there a psychological term for this type of behavior? Anybody know? I'e seen this particular rhetorical device employed many times, and I'm struck by both the frequency with which it is used, and how unfailingly it makes the person employing it seem just crazy.

[+jellis]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

 

Your hide is in a State Park, correct? Odds are they require explicit permission and your reviewer knows that.

Looking at the pre-publication dialogue with the reviewer, that's exactly how it went down. The Maryland State Parks were among the earliest land managers to adopt a permission policy.

Our State Parks don't require permission but they do have their own guidelines.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665.

As long as they are followed they don't require them. They do have staff that do watch where they are placed. Well except puzzles.

[knowschad]

[]

why are brackets needed to insert a smilie when i post a log but not needed here on the forums?

Actually, I like it. Looks like he has his fingers in his ears.

[+Don_J]

When I hid MY first (and so far only) cache, my reviewer asked for name and contact info for the person who gave me permission. Don't they ALL do that??? Seems like THAT would solve a LOT of problems! No?

 

Your hide is in a State Park, correct? Odds are they require explicit permission and your reviewer knows that.

Looking at the pre-publication dialogue with the reviewer, that's exactly how it went down. The Maryland State Parks were among the earliest land managers to adopt a permission policy.

Our State Parks don't require permission but they do have their own guidelines.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665.

As long as they are followed they don't require them. They do have staff that do watch where they are placed. Well except puzzles.

 

Really? They are closing California State Parks to the public because they don't have money to pay for employees to administer to them, but they have staff to watch where the geocaches end up?

 

Actually, I don't think that our state parks have the resources to even begin to enforce their geocaching policy. They are relying on the reviewers to properly vet cache submissions, and the reviewers are relying on us cache owners to tell the truth.

 

Our SoCal reviewers will not publish a cache in a State Park until you have assured them that you have read and are abiding by the State's rules.

 

www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665

[Mr.Yuck]

Well, I wasn't expecting 4 consecutive responses on Trackinthebox's meltdown. I'm sure he never called. He was banned by the end of that thread though, and a week or so later asked in the Navicache forums if anyone was interested in joining a class-action lawsuit against Groundspeak. I think myself and the Navicache admin were the only two replies, and we both said no.

 

ROFL about the class-action lawsuit.

 

OT: I couldn't help notice that Trackinthebox tended to talk to himself once things really started not going his way. As in "Hey Track, what happened that made you shut down _____ I was gonna do that one next week?" I've noticed this type of post from other seemingly irrational people on other forums. Is there a psychological term for this type of behavior? Anybody know? I'e seen this particular rhetorical device employed many times, and I'm struck by both the frequency with which it is used, and how unfailingly it makes the person employing it seem just crazy.

 

I didn't notice that back then, but you're right. Hey, I just thought of something. There was no interest 6 years ago, but how about if in modern times, he posted to the angry Garmin Geocaching Website forum that he wanted to start a class action lawsuit against Groundspeak? I'll bet he'd get several positive responses.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

 

OT: I couldn't help notice that Trackinthebox tended to talk to himself once things really started not going his way. As in "Hey Track, what happened that made you shut down _____ I was gonna do that one next week?" I've noticed this type of post from other seemingly irrational people on other forums. Is there a psychological term for this type of behavior? Anybody know? I'e seen this particular rhetorical device employed many times, and I'm struck by both the frequency with which it is used, and how unfailingly it makes the person employing it seem just crazy.

 

I didn't notice that back then, but you're right.

 

Perhaps I'm simply seeing the same guy on multiple forums? Or perhaps there is a section of "Trollin' teh interwebz 4 dummies" titled "Pompous FTW!!?" We may never know, I guess.

 

Back on topic - I don't wonder if the system we have now - mostly the honor system except in areas where there are known restrictions - isn't for the best. For example, imagine if *every* city park decided you needed to file quarterly paperwork to have a geocache, but every walmart said "we love cachers! hide 'em here!" Perhaps people who are concerned about permission are simply protective of property rights, but I suspect many of them would not find that to be a good outcome?

[knowschad]

Hey, knowschad... what do you think of this thread so far?

[+ByronForestPreserve]

The thing is, the word "adequate" should mean something. When it comes to geocaching, it doesn't.

 

Sure, a business's parking lot is open to the public to use,,, when the public actually uses it (parks their vehicle there) to conduct business at that business. I would just about guarantee you that hiding and finding a geocache, lifting up or dismantling a light pole skirt, and looking suspicious when moving in and out from between cars in that parking lot, is not what most business owners want. From what i see, there is no permission obtained whatsoever, explicit, adequate, or implied, for most of these hides.

 

GC.com may not be totally responsible for how people hide and find caches but it's easy to see that they look the other way when this issue is brought up. Because of this, i figure it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit comes up against GC.com and/or geocaching get's another black eye. So yes, i feel that it will be enforced sooner or later.

 

Speaking of a black eye...

 

I was talking to a park manager and mentioned geocaching. She told me she hates geocachers, and related the story. Someone hid a LPS cache in the parking lot. Parents started to ask her if people were dropping off drugs, so she stopped the next person she saw. First they said they were walking their dog. She confronted them a second time after they messed with the light post, and one of them got extremely angry and yelled that they were geocachers and could go wherever they wanted and she couldn't stop them, and that the parking lot was public property. Swear words were exchanged. The manager ended up calling the police, who then removed the cache and left his business card in its place. She also said that if the CO had just asked, she wouldn't have had a problem with it.

 

Two of my early finds were LPSs, and I think I'd rather go for a nice walk in the woods. However, I just asked in the local forums about state parks. I just found out that the ones near me require permission from the DNR, and also require that certain statements be posted on the cache page (ugh, and that you check your cache every 30 days and contact the site super to tell them it's still okay). And then I looked, and 5 of 6 caches in one of the parks does not contain the official info in the description, leading me to believe that they didn't get permission.

[Keystone]

I see many caches where the land manager has a formal permit policy, the cache owner obtains the permit, but there is no mention of the permission in the cache description. Privately in a reviewer note, the owner will tell me all the details - the name of the park ranger, the permit number, etc. They just don't say so to the public on the cache page.

 

I do not know why this is.

[Mr.Yuck]

The thing is, the word "adequate" should mean something. When it comes to geocaching, it doesn't.

 

Sure, a business's parking lot is open to the public to use,,, when the public actually uses it (parks their vehicle there) to conduct business at that business. I would just about guarantee you that hiding and finding a geocache, lifting up or dismantling a light pole skirt, and looking suspicious when moving in and out from between cars in that parking lot, is not what most business owners want. From what i see, there is no permission obtained whatsoever, explicit, adequate, or implied, for most of these hides.

 

GC.com may not be totally responsible for how people hide and find caches but it's easy to see that they look the other way when this issue is brought up. Because of this, i figure it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit comes up against GC.com and/or geocaching get's another black eye. So yes, i feel that it will be enforced sooner or later.

 

Speaking of a black eye...

 

I was talking to a park manager and mentioned geocaching. She told me she hates geocachers, and related the story. Someone hid a LPS cache in the parking lot. Parents started to ask her if people were dropping off drugs, so she stopped the next person she saw. First they said they were walking their dog. She confronted them a second time after they messed with the light post, and one of them got extremely angry and yelled that they were geocachers and could go wherever they wanted and she couldn't stop them, and that the parking lot was public property. Swear words were exchanged. The manager ended up calling the police, who then removed the cache and left his business card in its place. She also said that if the CO had just asked, she wouldn't have had a problem with it.

 

 

That is sad. It's also not the first example of Geocachers with a "I'm on public property, screw you" attitude. There was a thread a few months back where a newbie was looking for a trailhead micro somewhere in New York. An angry neighbor lady came out and confronted him, and he and his child just left. You wouldn't believe the number of "I'd tell that lady to screw off, I'm on public property" responses to his thread, and one cacher even went there to verify the cache was on public property, and even seemed to want a confrontation with the lady. But that is orders of magnitude worse, a park manager? Are you kidding me? And how much you want to bet that was a very experienced Geocacher, not Joe Schmuck with 25 finds on his smartphone?

 

Yeah, I've seen New York State Park caches which obviously need a permit, where the cache page doesn't say anything about it. And living in the State next to Keystone, I surf the new listings in his State from time to time, and I've seen plenty of caches on DCNR lands that say nothing about having a permit. Why people don't state it on their cache pages is a mystery, for sure.