Proof of Permission

[+Packfan12]

Many caches are published without permission. I was wondering what people thought of a proof of permission that is a basic contract that could be created by geocaching.com that basically stated a cache is placed on your property and requires the property owners signature. The reviewer would need to see the contract before the cache is published. I was wondering what others thought about this idea or others. I feel it is neccesary to keep cachers from tresspassing. It would really be no different that what should be done in the first place.

[+Dan2099]

Many caches are published without permission. I was wondering what people thought of a proof of permission that is a basic contract that could be created by geocaching.com that basically stated a cache is placed on your property and requires the property owners signature. The reviewer would need to see the contract before the cache is published. I was wondering what others thought about this idea or others. I feel it is neccesary to keep cachers from tresspassing. It would really be no different that what should be done in the first place.

 

That way I know who to sue when I trip and fall? Just kidding but people will try it. Plus a person who is willing to allow you to cache is less likely to sign and give you written permission.

[+lamoracke]

there are many places that has implied consent that do not need to go through the process. There is lots of unincorporated state or county land there is no known person to ask. I do not think we need such a system at this time. Require a city to sign? Who, the mayor? If its a private property, its more cut and dry in theory.

 

and I doubt this is going to solve things in many cases. You could get one manager to sign for you at a Walmart but when that manager is not on shift or there anymore, you may still get the bomb squad called on you.

 

Just saying a blanket policy is not the answer in my opinion. Sure its annoying to search for caches that may be on private property as I have learned through looking for them and once by accident maybe listing one on one.

 

edited for grammar

Edited August 6, 2012 by lamoracke

[+niraD]

Both my caches have adequate permission. I confirm that every time I update the listings. I see no reason for an official "permission to place a geocache on my property" form.

 

Besides, who would confirm that the signature on the form is legitimate? And if the form has legal boilerplate language, then a lot of property managers are going to need to consult attorneys before signing it, and then it's a LOT easier just to decline permission.

 

(Actually, my caches have explicit permission, but that's besides the point.)

[+JL_HSTRE]

While it might be nice to have a standardized form, many of the organizations that do care about explicit permission have their own form (often online). Many others that require explicit permission are happy to give verbal or email consent without any form and probably don't want to deal with paperwork.

 

I think the bigger issue with permission is not people lying about permission, but people placing caches without asking for permission when they should. Maybe some Reviewers can clarifying which is the more common issue: lying about permission or failing to get it at all (when the need is not apparent to the Reviewer)?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Joshism

[GOF and Bacall]

Like I told my buddy when he borrowed my ladder. "I want it back when your done. But if you fall off and break your neck I'm gonna deny I ever owned a ladder."

[+Cache O'Plenty]

My wife is a commercial property manager. I've asked her this very question about permission as it pertains to shopping malls/centers. Her response is: I will not give even verbal permission as it then becomes an issue of responsibility. The insurance company will take bigtime objection. And she will NEVER sign an agreement or permission slip. Although she is responsible for the day-to-day management of the shopping center, she is not the owner.

 

I imagine the same applies to Wal-Mart managers - they are not the owners of the property. It even becomes more murky when you realize that the ownership of the various segments of a shopping center can be complicated. The Wal-Mart may own the building but not the parking lot. And don't even bother asking Security! The fewer opportunities for headaches, the better.

[+seldon]

I have a standard policy of being against anything that involves more forms. Add this to the list.

[AZcachemeister]

Many caches are published without permission. I was wondering what people thought of a proof of permission that is a basic contract that could be created by geocaching.com that basically stated a cache is placed on your property and requires the property owners signature. The reviewer would need to see the contract before the cache is published. I was wondering what others thought about this idea or others. I feel it is neccesary to keep cachers from tresspassing. It would really be no different that what should be done in the first place.

 

Theoretically, when you submit a cache and check the 'I have obtained adequate permission' box, you are saying that this is what you did.

Groundspeak does not really care if you did or not, just that you said you did so they are off the hook if there are problems later. They are just a listing service after all.

 

This is where it can get dicey to be the FTF...you never know if permission was really obtained, or maybe the cache is really close to Billy Ray's shack and he don't like nighttime visitors much.

[+Walts Hunting]

no way will this become policy. The hobby would crash to a halt. As Bush Sr. used to say "ain't gonna happen.

[+T.D.M.22]

My reviewer is out of province-about 6 or 7 hours away. Now what's to stop me from forging a signature or leaving my best friend or coworkers name and number as a fake contact? And then what about events? There is no way he can verify all the caches. And what about places where no-one really know who is in charge of the land? The local highway-and the ditch-are patrolled by both the city and nearby town's police forces. Fire is the job of the city firedept. Caretaking-painting line and mowing the lawn etc is responsibility of a large corporation with a contract, yet lights are both taken care of by the City and the maintenance company. So having 5 or 6 different people who could give you permission in my town and nearby city doesn't mean everyone will know about it, and they will all deny it if someone gets hurt. What I am saying is there is no way to enforce this.

Edited August 7, 2012 by T.D.M.22

[+T.D.M.22]

i will also add a lot of people use the "Frisbee Rule" That is if you can play Frisbee, or walk the dog, fly a kite, or just hang out, that kind of thing, without having to ask permission you can place a geocache at that location as well.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Groundspeak does not really care if you did or not, just that you said you did so they are off the hook if there are problems later. They are just a listing service after all.

 

Not true these days. GS is requiring proof on certain properties. It's not real consistent. My guess is GS is being very cautious on municipal properties where lack of permission could lead to bans on large chunks of land. I actually had to provide proof of permission for the specific type of hide (tree climb).

[AZcachemeister]

Groundspeak does not really care if you did or not, just that you said you did so they are off the hook if there are problems later. They are just a listing service after all.

 

Not true these days. GS is requiring proof on certain properties. It's not real consistent. My guess is GS is being very cautious on municipal properties where lack of permission could lead to bans on large chunks of land. I actually had to provide proof of permission for the specific type of hide (tree climb).

 

Actually, I did fail to point out that there are most certainly areas that Groundspeak (and it's reviewers) ABSOLUTELY KNOW that permission must ABSOLUTELY be obtained in writing.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Beaners.

 

But, for the greater area (of the US at least), I stand by my statement.

[Mr.Yuck]

i will also add a lot of people use the "Frisbee Rule" That is if you can play Frisbee, or walk the dog, fly a kite, or just hang out, that kind of thing, without having to ask permission you can place a geocache at that location as well.

 

That's an oldie but goodie, that there frisbee rule. It was thrown around a lot when I started, and for a few years after that, but you don't hear it much anymore. I'm all for it. Town Park, or a bike trail with no local Geocaching policy? If you can play frisbee there without asking for permission, go for it, place a cache.

 

You cannot, by the way, play frisbee in the Wal-Mart parking lot, or the alley behind it, without asking for permission. See, it works.

[+lamoracke]

course, throwing a frisbee on some California beaches during the summer can cost you a lot of money right now.

[+briansnat]

Groundspeak does not really care if you did or not, just that you said you did so they are off the hook if there are problems later. They are just a listing service after all.

 

On the contrary, Groundspeak instructs the reviewers to adhere to known geocaching policies. If I want to place a cache in a NY state park (which I did) it was necessary for me to provide the reviewer with a copy of my permit (which I did). That is the rule there.

 

Different entities require different levels of permission. If the entity issues permits, then I want to see the permit. Some give verbal permission and if I'm told by the cache owner that he received verbal permission I believe him. Some give blanket permission as long as you adhere to certain rules. I think it's Minnesota (I could be wrong because it's been a while since I reviewed there) where on certain state lands you have to state on the cache page that you read and understand their listing requirements and your cache complies with them. Of course as a reviewer I have to take the cache owner on his word. Similar thing on NY's DEC lands. They have certain requirements and as long as the cache owner says he complied, then failing any contrary information, I have to believe him (if he is not telling the truth either another cacher or a park official is certain to make me aware of it).

 

If it is obvious to a reviewer that the cache is not someplace where the general public is normally allowed then the adequate consent ethic is out the window. Most reviewers will ask for proof of permission in those cases.

 

So you are quite wrong, Groundspeak cares, a lot. They know that we only practice our sport by the good graces of the land managers and they are eager to stay on good terms with them.

Edited August 7, 2012 by briansnat

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

I recently inquired about placing caches in our city parks. The parks manager just asked me to complete a "Special Use Permit" application and then confirmed approval with an email. He was happy to spend a couple of minutes on the request and send an email approval. These people are busy, and if they were required to sign off on caches I think we'd see big delays and perhaps some denials based on a lack of time.

[+briansnat]

i will also add a lot of people use the "Frisbee Rule" That is if you can play Frisbee, or walk the dog, fly a kite, or just hang out, that kind of thing, without having to ask permission you can place a geocache at that location as well.

 

That's an oldie but goodie, that there frisbee rule. It was thrown around a lot when I started, and for a few years after that, but you don't hear it much anymore. I'm all for it. Town Park, or a bike trail with no local Geocaching policy? If you can play frisbee there without asking for permission, go for it, place a cache.

 

You cannot, by the way, play frisbee in the Wal-Mart parking lot, or the alley behind it, without asking for permission. See, it works.

 

I thought I was the first person to mention the "Frisbee rule", but others credit Criminal. For all I know someone else could have beat both of us to it.

[+briansnat]

I recently inquired about placing caches in our city parks. The parks manager just asked me to complete a "Special Use Permit" application and then confirmed approval with an email. He was happy to spend a couple of minutes on the request and send an email approval. These people are busy, and if they were required to sign off on caches I think we'd see big delays and perhaps some denials based on a lack of time.

 

I remember the story of one person who approached his town about placing a cache. First they had to run it by the town council, who deferred to the city manager, who deferred it to the town attorneys. After several months of back and forth they approved his cache under two conditions. 1-He needed a million dollar liability policy and 2-The cache had to be removed after one day.

 

While all this was going on, several other people placed caches in the park and he was quite annoyed. A few years later I checked and most of those cache were still there, being found without complaint from the town.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

i will also add a lot of people use the "Frisbee Rule" That is if you can play Frisbee, or walk the dog, fly a kite, or just hang out, that kind of thing, without having to ask permission you can place a geocache at that location as well.

 

The park managers that I've dealt with when asking permission have, to a man, supported geocaching. Their concern was knowing where the geocache was so that the landscaping crews left it alone. So, I agree with the "frisbee rule" but it's still better to ask the park manager for permission and let them know where the cache is going to be located. Unless, of course, they're also geocachers. Then they'll have to find out where it's hidden the geocaching way .

[+Walts Hunting]

I have always lived by the "it is easier to get forgiveness than permission"

[Mr.Yuck]

I recently inquired about placing caches in our city parks. The parks manager just asked me to complete a "Special Use Permit" application and then confirmed approval with an email. He was happy to spend a couple of minutes on the request and send an email approval. These people are busy, and if they were required to sign off on caches I think we'd see big delays and perhaps some denials based on a lack of time.

 

I remember the story of one person who approached his town about placing a cache. First they had to run it by the town council, who deferred to the city manager, who deferred it to the town attorneys. After several months of back and forth they approved his cache under two conditions. 1-He needed a million dollar liability policy and 2-The cache had to be removed after one day.

 

While all this was going on, several other people placed caches in the park and he was quite annoyed. A few years later I checked and most of those cache were still there, being found without complaint from the town.

 

I've heard you tell this story before. Amazing! Nothing crazy like that, but I've never understood why a couple of cachers in my greater region decided they were going to approach a County about Geocaching 4 or 5 years ago. This is a mostly rural County with a population of about 60,000, about 15,000 of them in the County Seat. Anywho, they only have 3 County parks, and there were several caches already in them. The County came up with a permit system, and I'm quite sure they didn't decide they wanted a permit system on their own. One of the owners of a couple of the caches archived them in disgust when told they needed to get a permit for their existing caches.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I had a thought while emailing my local reviewer on a related issue.

 

What if cache owners had to provide property ownership information (links to tax assessors databases, plat maps, etc) along with the checkbox "I have adequate permission"?

 

While it won't prevent people from blindly checking the box, it would force hiders to take a couple of extra minutes to figure out who owns that property and it is indeed public/public access/private. I honestly believe a large number of hiders have abosultely no clue who actually owns/manages that little bit of woods they just hid their cache in. ("I always went fishing at that pond as a kid 20 years ago so it must be OK to hide a cache there.").

 

In Rhode Island, I can find ownership info for almost all towns with a few clicks of the mouse in a browser. Only a small number of the towns have no plat maps online. MOst towns have an interactive GIS system that shows maps and property info.

[+Packfan12]

I was not neccesarily reffering to parks and city lands, but many parks in my area do require a permit. The primary caches that seem to cause problems are hidden at or near local businesses and the owners get a little upset when people are snooping around.

[Mr.Yuck]

I was not neccesarily reffering to parks and city lands, but many parks in my area do require a permit. The primary caches that seem to cause problems are hidden at or near local businesses and the owners get a little upset when people are snooping around.

 

Oh, I hear you. My biggest pet peeve in the game. I'd say from day one, but I pre-date such "caching" in my area. Parking lot caches didn't start showing up until 2005. And I'm like, "are you didding me? We can't cache there". Well, history has certainly shown me to be wrong, hasn't it?

 

The complexities of ownership have been stated, as well as how everyone doesn't know about the cache. Just because you got permission from the Wal-Mart manager doesn't mean anyone is going to go to him when they see a weirdo in the parking lot.

 

However, why would permission have to be as complex as the ownership issues? The reviewers in my State are currently asking for explicit permission for cemetery caches, and it seems like they accept just about anyone connected with the cemetery as "permission giver".

[+BAMBOOZLE]

If an official form had to be signed and submitted it would be the end of 99% of the caches out there.

[+ArcherDragoon]

If an official form had to be signed and submitted it would be the end of 99% of the caches out there.

75% of the statistics you see out there are made up...the other 1/2 are just plain wrong!!!

[+T.D.M.22]

I had a thought while emailing my local reviewer on a related issue.

 

What if cache owners had to provide property ownership information (links to tax assessors databases, plat maps, etc) along with the checkbox "I have adequate permission"?

 

While it won't prevent people from blindly checking the box, it would force hiders to take a couple of extra minutes to figure out who owns that property and it is indeed public/public access/private. I honestly believe a large number of hiders have abosultely no clue who actually owns/manages that little bit of woods they just hid their cache in. ("I always went fishing at that pond as a kid 20 years ago so it must be OK to hide a cache there.").

 

In Rhode Island, I can find ownership info for almost all towns with a few clicks of the mouse in a browser. Only a small number of the towns have no plat maps online. MOst towns have an interactive GIS system that shows maps and property info.

Like I said in my first post, Signatures can be forged. I could even give them my friends name and phone number as a fake contact. And as for ownership, well it's not always the owner that decides. again, as in my first post there can be 5 or 6 different, unrelated agencies all somehow in charge of the same land, so who to go to?

[+dprovan]

If an official form had to be signed and submitted it would be the end of 99% of the caches out there.

75% of the statistics you see out there are made up...the other 1/2 are just plain wrong!!!

I know! In this case, his made up number is obviously way low: it would be at least 99.9% of all caches.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I had a thought while emailing my local reviewer on a related issue.

 

What if cache owners had to provide property ownership information (links to tax assessors databases, plat maps, etc) along with the checkbox "I have adequate permission"?

 

While it won't prevent people from blindly checking the box, it would force hiders to take a couple of extra minutes to figure out who owns that property and it is indeed public/public access/private. I honestly believe a large number of hiders have abosultely no clue who actually owns/manages that little bit of woods they just hid their cache in. ("I always went fishing at that pond as a kid 20 years ago so it must be OK to hide a cache there.").

 

In Rhode Island, I can find ownership info for almost all towns with a few clicks of the mouse in a browser. Only a small number of the towns have no plat maps online. MOst towns have an interactive GIS system that shows maps and property info.

Like I said in my first post, Signatures can be forged. I could even give them my friends name and phone number as a fake contact. And as for ownership, well it's not always the owner that decides. again, as in my first post there can be 5 or 6 different, unrelated agencies all somehow in charge of the same land, so who to go to?

 

You missed my point. I am suggesting that cache owners just have to provide info on who owns/manages the property. Just by forcing hiders to look up this info and figure out who the owner is will eliminate some of the issues.

[4wheelin_fool]

I had a thought while emailing my local reviewer on a related issue.

 

What if cache owners had to provide property ownership information (links to tax assessors databases, plat maps, etc) along with the checkbox "I have adequate permission"?

 

While it won't prevent people from blindly checking the box, it would force hiders to take a couple of extra minutes to figure out who owns that property and it is indeed public/public access/private. I honestly believe a large number of hiders have abosultely no clue who actually owns/manages that little bit of woods they just hid their cache in. ("I always went fishing at that pond as a kid 20 years ago so it must be OK to hide a cache there.").

 

In Rhode Island, I can find ownership info for almost all towns with a few clicks of the mouse in a browser. Only a small number of the towns have no plat maps online. MOst towns have an interactive GIS system that shows maps and property info.

Like I said in my first post, Signatures can be forged. I could even give them my friends name and phone number as a fake contact. And as for ownership, well it's not always the owner that decides. again, as in my first post there can be 5 or 6 different, unrelated agencies all somehow in charge of the same land, so who to go to?

 

You missed my point. I am suggesting that cache owners just have to provide info on who owns/manages the property. Just by forcing hiders to look up this info and figure out who the owner is will eliminate some of the issues.

 

I agree, that would solve plenty of headaches. They would not have to show proof, but only display knowledge of who owned it. For example:

 

Choose from one of the following:

• Publicly owned
  
• Privately owned
  

 

If they pick publicly owned, they get another set of choices:

 

• Federal government (Areas include National Parks, Federal Recreation areas, managed by Bureau of Land Management, or Department of National Resources)
  
• State Forest (show list for that state)
  
• Township or city
  

 

and check off which property it is. The prompt would inform them of applicable Geocaching policies for that area. If they do not know whose property it is, or if they are incorrect, then the cache should not be published. It could have incorrect coords, or cause issues.

 

If they pick privately owned, they get:

 

• Commercial open to the public
  
• Individual
  
• homeowner group, condo association, hunting club, ect.
  

 

For these caches, they should need to provide a contact phone number for the entity listed, or manager. If they cannot provide a number, or provide a false one, the cache should not be published. In this scenario, there would still be no need to check if permission was actually granted, but it would stop plenty of hides which are bad ideas.

[+Mike & Jess]

Proof of permission would be a tough go in many areas.

 

In the Northern Part of Ontario, our geocaching play ground is huge. There are so many amazing places yet to be discovered and shared with other cachers.

 

The kicker is, a lot of this natural forest is owned by individuals, mining companies, is crown land, or is crown land leased to a company.

In and around my home town, most forest area is owned by the mining companies. Most of it has been owned for many, many years, but never touched. In the case of the forest behind my friend's property, it was originally owned by a defunct lumber company, and has gone through a few number companies (probably mining). No one has touched the forest in 50+ years with the exception of the network of trails running through it. The amount of effort required to track down a living person who works for company 975401 (made up number btw), would make this sport impossible locally.

 

I have some personal experience with this as I had a cache achieved because a road ~20-30yrds south of my cache had a sign stating no trespassing. I gave up trying to find known proof that the cemetery at the end of the road was the private property, and that the road crossed city property. (I also bushwhacked my way from the hwy to the cache location, so no trespassing was required.)

 

My point is, of the ~50+ caches I have placed (some archived now), I can count on one hand how many I can 100% prove is permission approved. My lamp post caches and bus sign caches would all be invalid.

With my recent relocation to a small town, and now involvement with it's tourism and what not, I should be able to better that number as I'll be introducing geocaching to this quiet cottege town.

[4wheelin_fool]

I would go even further and say that not only should they indicate who owns it, but the cache page should indicate it as well. PQs could then be set to filter out caches hidden in commercial areas, as well as in people's yards.

[+Misfit-77]

Why is it people want to make "policys" and "regulations" where none is needed on everything? Who is going to want to place new caches having to jump through all the red tape? Next it'll be a cache tax! Leave it alone.

[+Lexmarks567]

Why is it people want to make "policys" and "regulations" where none is needed on everything? Who is going to want to place new caches having to jump through all the red tape? Next it'll be a cache tax! Leave it alone.

 

Or take their caches elsewhere like another website.

[4wheelin_fool]

Why is it people want to make "policys" and "regulations" where none is needed on everything? Who is going to want to place new caches having to jump through all the red tape? Next it'll be a cache tax! Leave it alone.

 

There have been a few problems outside of the 7 weeks you have been caching. A kid got shot on private property, another kid trespassing fell to his death, a few bomb scares, caching banned in a few places such as SC, other cachers damaging private property and so on.. Eventually they will tighten things up.

[+timbee&suebee]

One of the more recent caches we published was in a state park. We had permission from the park manager and he signed our cache placement application. We mentioned in our cache listing that we had permission to place this cache. The reviewer contacted us to ask the name and contact info of the person who gave us permission. I don't know if that is standard procedure for state parks or his new policy. He mentioned something about having the info on file if anyone asked. Either way, it wasn't a big deal so I sent the info he requested and the next day he published the cache. So when we published more caches in that park and one in a town (which I got permission from the mayor to place) I added that same type of info to the reveiewer note in advance of him asking.