Permission on placing a cache

[+justintim1999]

I currently have a series of 6 caches placed on a piece of conservation land. It took over a year and attending many meetings to gain permission to place them.

 

Recently a new cacher placed a cache within the conservation land. I have been working with the land owners on placing another 2 caches of my own but now the new cache interferes with the placement of one of them.

 

My question is this. Even though caches have been approved for a particular area do you still need permission to place any new caches in that area?

 

Thanks

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Unless the landowner has some form of "blanket" policy, each individual cache needs explicit or at least adequate, permission.

 

The fact that the new caches "interfere" with your plans is another matter. If that cacher has adequate permission, it is generally accepted as a first-come, first-served activity.

 

Quite possibly, addressing the issue with the "new cacher" can produce an amicable solution and understanding.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+justintim1999]

Unless the landowner has some form of "blanket" policy, each individual cache needs explicit or at least adequate, permission.

 

The fact that the new caches "interfere" with your plans is another matter. If that cacher has adequate permission, it is generally accepted as a first-come, first-served activity.

 

Quite possibly, addressing the issue with the "new cacher" can produce an amicable solution and understanding.

 

Thanks. I checked with the land owners and they did not give permission for the new cache. The land owners agreed to allow me to place caches on the land with the understanding that I would be the one maintaining them. My only other question is how did this new cache get published without supplying land owner permission?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I only see 4 caches placed within the boundaries (unless the multi has stages within the boundaries), you are the CO of all four. I understand park boundaries are not always as portrayed on maps.

[+justintim1999]

I only see 4 caches placed within the boundaries (unless the multi has stages within the boundaries), you are the CO of all four. I understand park boundaries are not always as portrayed on maps.

 

Not sure what your looking at?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

My only other question is how did this new cache get published without supplying land owner permission?

Only the reviewer would be able to answer that...

 

... or it is possible that the other CO has "another" person in authority granting permission.

[+cheech gang]

Here are your four. It is hard to determine if the other 4 are just outside the border of the reserve.

 

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It is a close call... but based on those maps, I would say the others are outside of the park boundary.

 

So the issue may well be proximity, not permission.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+briansnat]

My only other question is how did this new cache get published without supplying land owner permission?

 

The local reviewer is likely not aware that this land manager has a permission policy. You might want to e-mail him and let him know. And if the land manager has a "shape file" of the property it would be helpful to provide that to the reviewer. In fact you should have the land manager e-mail the reviewer directly. Many reviewers want to hear a policy statement right from the land manager, because anybody could make something up.

Edited December 29, 2013 by briansnat

[+NanCycle]

Here are your four. It is hard to determine if the other 4 are just outside the border of the reserve.

 

 

Based on the maps as given, it looks to me that the other 4 were carefully placed to be outside of the reserve. I'd place my bet on "proximity" as opposed to "permission."

[+edscott]

Based on the Google map they appear to be just outside the property line, but as is noted somewhere above park boundaries on Google are often rough sketches. In my area Google has included the county property maps on the closest views which help a lot, but zooming out returns the user to the rough sketches. I assume the preserve boundary is marked. I'd go to the cache and see which side it is on then work with both the preserve and the other hider to solve the problem.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

My question is this. Even though caches have been approved for a particular area do you still need permission to place any new caches in that area?

 

Thanks

 

For the most part, permission is not validated. I could say I have permission and the reviewer would have to believe me. They really don't follow up unless there is some sort of issue(think about how much time the reviewers would spend verifying for permission) Then there's the easy way that I could give a fake contact for the landowner, and have it be my brother, and he says I have permission.

 

Of course there are some area's that the reviewers know no caches are allowed, or explicit written permission, or permits are required, but that will only apply if the landowner contacts Groundspeak, makes those policies widely known.(It won't do any good if someone makes a policy but doesn't inform people about it...)

[+edscott]

Now I see that the westernmost and southernmost caches that are not circled on the map above are owned by the original poster suggesting that the Google map is inaccurate. Reading the cache page of one of the intruders shows that the recommended access is through the park and the description suggests that it is within the boundary.

Edited December 29, 2013 by edscott

[+justintim1999]

Now I see that the westernmost and southernmost caches that are not circled on the map above are owned by the original poster suggesting that the Google map is inaccurate. Reading the cache page of one of the intruders shows that the recommended access is through the park and the description suggests that it is within the boundary.

 

I'm sure that the cache in question is on the property without permission. I think the cache owner simply thought that since there are caches already on the property it was ok to place another.

 

I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work. I also don't want to have the other cache removed. The cacher's first find was one of the caches I placed here.

 

The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.

 

Will have to think about what to do next.

[+edscott]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

Edited December 30, 2013 by edscott

[+justintim1999]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

 

that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.

 

thanks for the response.

[+dprovan]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

Yeah, this sounds like the right attitude. Once he knows about the issue, the other CO might want to just archive his cache and turn the area over to the OP. But if the OP's very lucky, the other owner will want to keep his cache in place, and then there will be a second CO working to maintain caches on this property. Given that the Trust wants one person responsible, the other owner might have to turn over official ownership, but that doesn't prevent the OP and this new CO from recognizing between the two of them which caches are whose.

 

I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work.

I hate to be a curmudgeon, either, but I have to tell you that other caches sometimes foil our plans, so you should accept the fact that some of your effort was wasted with grace.

 

The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.

Oooh! Sounds like a good puzzle cache! "There's only one place within the conservation land boundaries that I could place a cache, so that's where this one is."

[+L0ne.R]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

 

that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.

 

thanks for the response.

 

I agree with edscott regarding working with the cache owner to get proper permission. It is great that you opened up a dialogue with the conservation authorities to allow anyone to place a cache on conservation land with permission. Or is my understanding incorrect, was the negotiation for permission only for you to hide caches on the Rauscher farm land owned by the Town of Clinton?

Edited December 30, 2013 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

Yeah, this sounds like the right attitude. Once he knows about the issue, the other CO might want to just archive his cache and turn the area over to the OP. But if the OP's very lucky, the other owner will want to keep his cache in place, and then there will be a second CO working to maintain caches on this property. Given that the Trust wants one person responsible, the other owner might have to turn over official ownership, but that doesn't prevent the OP and this new CO from recognizing between the two of them which caches are whose.

 

I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work.

I hate to be a curmudgeon, either, but I have to tell you that other caches sometimes foil our plans, so you should accept the fact that some of your effort was wasted with grace.

 

The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.

Oooh! Sounds like a good puzzle cache! "There's only one place within the conservation land boundaries that I could place a cache, so that's where this one is."

 

Not sure what the last post is referring to but having another cache owner keeping an eye on the area is a good idea.

[+justintim1999]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

 

that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.

 

thanks for the response.

 

I agree with edscott regarding working with the cache owner to get proper permission. It is great that you opened up a dialogue with the conservation authorities to allow anyone to place a cache on conservation land with permission. Or is my understanding incorrect, was the negotiation for permission only for you to hide caches on the Rauscher farm land owned by the Town of Clinton?

 

My intent was to gain permission to hide caches within the conservation land. The trustees wanted a single point of contact regarding caches on the property. I agreed to place 8 caches around the area and be responsible for maintaining them. I don't think they will mind having another cache owner using the property as long as we communicate. The other concern the trust has is placing caches in sensitive wetlands and habitats. The new cache is in an area that should be ok but again, not my land not my decision. That's why I want to clear it with the trust.

[+L0ne.R]

I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.

 

that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.

 

thanks for the response.

 

I agree with edscott regarding working with the cache owner to get proper permission. It is great that you opened up a dialogue with the conservation authorities to allow anyone to place a cache on conservation land with permission. Or is my understanding incorrect, was the negotiation for permission only for you to hide caches on the Rauscher farm land owned by the Town of Clinton?

 

My intent was to gain permission to hide caches within the conservation land. The trustees wanted a single point of contact regarding caches on the property. I agreed to place 8 caches around the area and be responsible for maintaining them. I don't think they will mind having another cache owner using the property as long as we communicate. The other concern the trust has is placing caches in sensitive wetlands and habitats. The new cache is in an area that should be ok but again, not my land not my decision. That's why I want to clear it with the trust.

 

You might want to suggest to the Trustees that they add a blurb to their website about how to obtain permission to plant a geocache and what the requirements are for placing a cache one their property. I expect that this would help reviewers as well as future cache owners (assuming that sometime in the future a spot opens up). What's your role as the go-between? How does a cacher currently know that they need to contact you? Sorry for all the questions, I'm not clear about how one goes about planting a cache on the Clinton's Rauscher Farm conservation land? Do they contact the Trustees, or do they contact you? If you, how do they know how to contact you? And if you, how do you provide permission - is there a form that needs to be signed?

[+justintim1999]

I guess I was the first person to approach them about placing caches on the property.

 

The trustees were new to caching and it took me almost a year (and many meetings) to get the 6 caches I have there published. They were very particular as to where the caches would be hidden and what type of containers would be used. There are wetlands and fragile habitat areas they wanted to me to stay away from.

 

They liked the idea of having one geocaching contact person who would oversee all of the caches on the property.

 

The land is only 62 acres and the 8 caches that were planed would pretty much use up the available space required to place a cache within the lands boundaries.

[+Don_J]

Now I see that the westernmost and southernmost caches that are not circled on the map above are owned by the original poster suggesting that the Google map is inaccurate. Reading the cache page of one of the intruders shows that the recommended access is through the park and the description suggests that it is within the boundary.

 

I'm sure that the cache in question is on the property without permission. I think the cache owner simply thought that since there are caches already on the property it was ok to place another.

 

I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work. I also don't want to have the other cache removed. The cacher's first find was one of the caches I placed here.

 

The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.

 

Will have to think about what to do next.

 

I have always thought that it should be a basic guideline that if someone places a cache that requires explicate permission, permits, etc, that fact should be required to be in the cache description. When I started caching in 2005, if a cache was placed on an otherwise cache-less trail, the finders would place more caches along the trail with the idea that it must be okay.

 

You should perhaps detail the process that you had to go thorough to place your caches in this area in you cache descriptions to let others know that while you have opened the door, they still need to get permission before placing new caches.

 

Also, as far as "working on a cache", if you have the coordinates nailed down for that cache, create a "disabled, not ready for review" cache page with those coordinates. If you nail those coordinates down and someone places a cache within that proximity, the reviewer will typically contact you about your plans for that particular spot on the Earth.

 

Personally, since this cacher was FTF on your cache and placed another with the idea that it was okay to do so, I'd give up the spot, contact him, explain what was going on and offer to help him get permission for HIS cache. This is how Geocaching communities start.

 

In other words, instead of taking an adversarial, (I was here first), role, take a cooperative and helpful role.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Don_J

[+justintim1999]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but you're sounding awful controlling to me here. Like it's "your park" or something. You say you were the first one to approach them for permission to place caches. I have a one word question for you. WHY? Looks to me like a ordinary Town Park in Massachusetts. The general consensus in Geocaching is if it's public land with no existing Geocaching Policy, than it's OK to place a cache there. Why butt in and get a policy created where there was none before?

 

You started in 2010. I know this website makes it extremely difficult to search for archived caches, but I can't imagine, unless this is a new park, that there haven't been caches there in the past.

[+justintim1999]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but you're sounding awful controlling to me here. Like it's "your park" or something. You say you were the first one to approach them for permission to place caches. I have a one word question for you. WHY? Looks to me like a ordinary Town Park in Massachusetts. The general consensus in Geocaching is if it's public land with no existing Geocaching Policy, than it's OK to place a cache there. Why butt in and get a policy created where there was none before?

 

You started in 2010. I know this website makes it extremely difficult to search for archived caches, but I can't imagine, unless this is a new park, that there haven't been caches there in the past.

 

Did you not read the part about how I'm trying to help them keep there cache? A cache that was placed without permission, within a wetland area and within 526 feet of another cache. Controlling??? Controlling would be demanding that the new cache be removed.

 

This is relatively new public land. It was purchased in 2008. Regardless of whether or not there were caches on the land prior to 2008, the property was purchased by new owners, and I would think you would have to get permission from the new owners to place or keep a cache on there property.

 

On there web site is a list of approved activities along with activities that are not allowed. At the bottom is a disclamer which reads " For all other activities and group events, permits, permissions, and other information contact:"

 

I would assume that geocaching falls under "all other activities."

 

The trust was very concerned with people just dropping caches where ever they wanted on the property. They are not cachers and asked me to monitor the area to make sure that if someone did place a cache or a letter box or anything they went through the same process I did. They are also working on getting some of the land designated as conservation land. This means that there are certain rules and guidelines that need to be maintained.

 

Again the new cache owners didn't know this because they didn't go through the steps to contact the proper people and get permission. If they did they would have learned some of this information and could have placed the cache in a proper spot. They got themselves into this and I'm honestly trying to help them out.

 

It's not my place to approve or disapprove the cache. I just informed the Trust that a new cache was placed and where it was placed. I've already invited the new cache owner to attend the next meeting and talk with the trustees.

 

I just think people should follow the rules and put in the time and effort if there going to place a cache. I also believe if you make a mistake you own up to it and take responsibility.

Edited January 5, 2014 by justintim1999

[Mr.Yuck]

I won't quote you Justin, but I read your response in detail. I have since read up on the park, and looked at the other cache, placed by a new cacher with under 50 finds. I would definitely say it was a case of "public land and there's caches here, lets place on of our own".

 

Ultimately, it's just a town park. One with an interesting story, and a "friends of the park organization", but just a town park. There are very, very few town parks in the U.S. with Geocaching policies, and it's very unusual for a Geocacher to approach a township and ask permission to place caches in one. Reason? They'd be subjected to a one year ordeal, and many meetings with town officials. Am I right? Neither I, nor anyone I know, would have asked permission to place caches in this new town park. I suppose it's a dirty little secret that 90%+ of Geocaches have no formal permission. (that's just a wild guess, there are no official stats).

 

I still really do think you're being controlling, but it's by proxy, seeing as the town asked you to oversee any caches or letterboxes in the park. I can't imagine it would have turned out any other way. So I guess you have no choice but to help the new cachers obtain permission. Having them move their cache? Controlling, again. In my opinion, of course.

 

The rule is 528 feet, but I see where you're getting 526 feet from, if you do a "nearby caches" search on theirs, one of yours is 526 feet way. The reviewers will often give you 5 or 10 feet if they're feeling nice that day.

[+justintim1999]

This is not "Just a town park" It is part of the Mount Pisgah Conservation District and is considered conservation land. It is open to the public but there are rules and regulations to using the land.

 

Yes, many town meetings were attended and many hoops had to be jumped through to get the 5 caches I have placed there. I guess I took it to heart when Groundspeak required us to "seek permission from the land owner or manager?" I don't own the land so I contacted the people who do. I didn't know there were ssome rules you could follow and some you could ignore.

 

Notice how I said 5 caches placed on the property. My sixth cache was rejected because it was 12 feet from another one of mine. Had to contact the DCR to get permission to place it on the adjacent property.

 

The cache in question is about 508 feet from one of my own but that's not the issue. The issue is the cache may be inside the wetland area. After talking to the cache owners I'm convinced that they tried to place the cache right along the trail which would have been ok. Due to the proximity issues they were forced to push it back off the trail and into the wetlands.

 

I have already mapped out the land and identified two locations that the cache could be moved to. Both ado not meet the 526 foot rule but are close.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

 

I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.

 

 

[+justintim1999]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

 

I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.

 

I don't know that the new cache owner realizes that s/he may have placed a geocache in a protected wetland area or on private property because they didn't take the time to speak with the land managers about placing it in an approved location. That is what this is all about. If the land owners or managers have no problem with the location of the new cache, neither do I. If it is placed on private property it's better to remove it now before it starts to cause real problems. The bottom line is If you don't own the land you must get permission from the land owner or manager before you place a cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

This is not "Just a town park" It is part of the Mount Pisgah Conservation District and is considered conservation land. It is open to the public but there are rules and regulations to using the land.

 

Yes, many town meetings were attended and many hoops had to be jumped through to get the 5 caches I have placed there. I guess I took it to heart when Groundspeak required us to "seek permission from the land owner or manager?" I don't own the land so I contacted the people who do. I didn't know there were ssome rules you could follow and some you could ignore.

 

Notice how I said 5 caches placed on the property. My sixth cache was rejected because it was 12 feet from another one of mine. Had to contact the DCR to get permission to place it on the adjacent property.

 

The cache in question is about 508 feet from one of my own but that's not the issue. The issue is the cache may be inside the wetland area. After talking to the cache owners I'm convinced that they tried to place the cache right along the trail which would have been ok. Due to the proximity issues they were forced to push it back off the trail and into the wetlands.

 

I have already mapped out the land and identified two locations that the cache could be moved to. Both ado not meet the 526 foot rule but are close.

 

Ahhh, it's very admirable what you did contacting the land owner and asking permission, but it is rather extremely rare for a cacher to do so. You rarely hear the term around here these days, but many of us old-timers subscribe to the "frisbee rule". If you can play frisbee there without asking permission, it's OK to place a cache there without asking permission. I stand by 90% or more of Geocaches in the U.S. being placed without formal permission.

 

The first two are moot points, but here's basically what I'm saying.

 

1) I don't think you should have approached them for permission, thus creating a Geocaching Policy where none previously existed.

2) You could have "reserved" your cache location with an unpublished cache page. Of course you didn't know that at the time.

3) You should help the newbie cache owners obtain permission. In this case, I'm sure they'd be happy to move their cache a little.

4) I seriously doubt you'd get a "waiver" for 508 feet. 518, maybe. Again, I'm sure they cache owner would be very responsive there.

 

I'm seriously not trying to give you a hard time here! Just some observations. I remember two Geocachers in my area approached a mostly rural County and got a Geocaching Policy enacted where there previously was none. I still hear wisecracks about it from old-timers 6-7 years later.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

 

I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.

 

I don't know that the new cache owner realizes that s/he may have placed a geocache in a protected wetland area or on private property because they didn't take the time to speak with the land managers about placing it in an approved location. That is what this is all about. If the land owners or managers have no problem with the location of the new cache, neither do I. If it is placed on private property it's better to remove it now before it starts to cause real problems. The bottom line is If you don't own the land you must get permission from the land owner or manager before you place a cache.

 

I don't know if you read about the incident in New Jersey where a caching association's president worked closely with a land manager (also a geocacher, also a member of the association) to force removal of caches already in the parks in order to replace them with the association's (his) caches.

 

Some parts of your posts and rebuttals come off sounding like it's similar to the NNJC situation. Especially "Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?" It seemed like you were saying, "I made the parks aware of geocaching. I worked with them to set up rules. My caches should trump anyone who did not go through the same process.'

 

It is nice to read that the park managers are not anti-geocaching. Sometimes approaching park management can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes they shut out geocaching entirely because it sounds harmful, sometimes they would prefer not to have to deal with it and say no because it's easier then dealing with it, and when they do allow it it almost always involves some kind of hoop-jumping and red tape. In this case they have apparently appointed you go-between without outlining the restricted areas, explaining what authority you have, or posting anything on their website regarding geocaching and who to contact. It almost sounds like they are OK with geocaching but don't want to be bothered dealing with it.

 

It is good to read that you are willing to work with the other cacher to get the park to officially approve their cache, rather then get the park to remove it so you can plant yours.

Edited January 5, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?

 

I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.

 

Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?

 

Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?

 

 

I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.

 

I don't know that the new cache owner realizes that s/he may have placed a geocache in a protected wetland area or on private property because they didn't take the time to speak with the land managers about placing it in an approved location. That is what this is all about. If the land owners or managers have no problem with the location of the new cache, neither do I. If it is placed on private property it's better to remove it now before it starts to cause real problems. The bottom line is If you don't own the land you must get permission from the land owner or manager before you place a cache.

 

I don't know if you read about the incident in New Jersey where a caching association's president worked closely with a land manager (also a geocacher, also a member of the association) to force removal of caches already in the parks in order to replace them with the association's (his) caches.

 

Some parts of your posts and rebuttals come off sounding like it's similar to the NNJC situation. Especially "Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?" It seemed like you were saying, "I made the parks aware of geocaching. I worked with them to set up rules. My caches should trump anyone who did not go through the same process.'

 

It is nice to read that the park managers are not anti-geocaching. Sometimes approaching park management can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes they shut out geocaching entirely because it sounds harmful, sometimes they would prefer not to have to deal with it and say no because it's easier then dealing with it, and when they do allow it it almost always involves some kind of hoop-jumping and red tape. In this case they have apparently appointed you go-between without outlining the restricted areas, explaining what authority you have, or posting anything on their website regarding geocaching and who to contact. It almost sounds like they are OK with geocaching but don't want to be bothered dealing with it.

 

It is good to read that you are willing to work with the other cacher to get the park to officially approve their cache, rather then get the park to remove it so you can plant yours.

 

Thank you Lone.R for the response. I've always found that the golden rule "do to others what you would have them do to you" should apply to everytng including caching. In this case getting permission from the land owner or manager is the right thing to do as is helping the new cacher keep there cache. I am working on doing both. The whole point of all this is to do the right thing regardless of how hard it may be. We also held our first geocaching 101 event this last fall and plan on holding one every year. Education can go a long way in avoiding issues like this in the future.

 

The park is wholy on board with geocaching. The program has been a great sucess. Getting the new cache removed was never my intention. Making sure it was in a safe and approved location is what this is all about.

[+K13]

I admire the methods and steps taken by the OP here. He did what is expected of cache placers. He identified the property owner/manager and took the necessary steps to place caches there. The second person did none of this - no permission for placing the cache, so technically it should be archived , unless permission is from the land manager. If new placements were done in this 'park' without proper permission, the entire area would be off limits to caches and Geocaching would have the black-eye from it.

Thanks to the OP for doing things the correct way and good luck with the headaches you are getting now because of doing the right thing.

[+Yuma4]

Since the NJ thing was mentioned I thought I would offer a novices observation. I think the OP could have been NJish but is handling it in a manner that the NJ president did not. NJ used the Land Manager to force remove a geocache/s that are in the way of his/their planned Geo trail.

 

The OP has contacted the cache in rule violation, is helping to make the cache legit. What I think the question is-what to do about a Geocache that is in violation of guidelines?

 

What I am hearing from the "Old-Timers" is, if 90 other caches didn't ask for permission then I shouldn't either.

 

My question to the community is: Do we follow guidelines to publish a cache? If not what are the consequences? Justin's concerns are valid, he went through a lot of hoops to get 6 caches published on wetlands. I do not know the scope of the area as I don't live there. Lets say the Land manager finds out about the cache in question, sees that it does not have permission, is not in the correct container. The LM may get upset and say, Geocaching is risking our conservation land, All Geocaching is banned.

 

This happened in Arizona on State Trust Land. Cachers started placing caches without permission, breaking guidelines and hundreds of caches were forced removed by the Land Manager. This was a case of 90% of caches were placed without permission so it must be OK.

[+justintim1999]

I am not fimular with the incident in NJ but from what I can gather it has absoutly nothing to do with this situation although I can see how people would jump to that conclusion.

 

There is one spot within the property that is still available to place a cache. It complys with the conservation guidelines and is far enough away from any other caches. I have received palimanary approval to place a cache there and have been working on it for a few months now (this is not a simple lock and lock cache.)

 

If things don't work out with the new cache I've already agreed to give up that spot so that the new cache can be relocated there. The only thing I've asked is that in the future if the new cache owners decide they nolonger want to be involved in caching they allow me to adopt the cache.

Edited January 7, 2014 by justintim1999

[+wmpastor]

This is not "Just a town park" It is part of the Mount Pisgah Conservation District and is considered conservation land. It is open to the public but there are rules and regulations to using the land.

 

Yes, many town meetings were attended and many hoops had to be jumped through to get the 5 caches I have placed there. I guess I took it to heart when Groundspeak required us to "seek permission from the land owner or manager?" I don't own the land so I contacted the people who do. I didn't know there were ssome rules you could follow and some you could ignore.

 

Notice how I said 5 caches placed on the property. My sixth cache was rejected because it was 12 feet from another one of mine. Had to contact the DCR to get permission to place it on the adjacent property.

 

The cache in question is about 508 feet from one of my own but that's not the issue. The issue is the cache may be inside the wetland area. After talking to the cache owners I'm convinced that they tried to place the cache right along the trail which would have been ok. Due to the proximity issues they were forced to push it back off the trail and into the wetlands.

 

I have already mapped out the land and identified two locations that the cache could be moved to. Both ado not meet the 526 foot rule but are close.

 

Ahhh, it's very admirable what you did contacting the land owner and asking permission, but it is rather extremely rare for a cacher to do so. You rarely hear the term around here these days, but many of us old-timers subscribe to the "frisbee rule". If you can play frisbee there without asking permission, it's OK to place a cache there without asking permission. I stand by 90% or more of Geocaches in the U.S. being placed without formal permission.

 

The first two are moot points, but here's basically what I'm saying.

 

1) I don't think you should have approached them for permission, thus creating a Geocaching Policy where none previously existed.

2) You could have "reserved" your cache location with an unpublished cache page. Of course you didn't know that at the time.

3) You should help the newbie cache owners obtain permission. In this case, I'm sure they'd be happy to move their cache a little.

4) I seriously doubt you'd get a "waiver" for 508 feet. 518, maybe. Again, I'm sure they cache owner would be very responsive there.

 

I'm seriously not trying to give you a hard time here! Just some observations. I remember two Geocachers in my area approached a mostly rural County and got a Geocaching Policy enacted where there previously was none. I still hear wisecracks about it from old-timers 6-7 years later.

These points are interesting and are part of the "unwritten rules" of the game. They were not clear to me in my first few months of membership & I'm sure it applies to others.

 

The "Frisbee rule" is good because it highlights "implied permission." In other words, routine, safe, non-destructive, legal activities that don't interfere with others are generally okay on public land.

 

Also, the reviewer may have helpful information. It's tricky - placing the caches without asking in some places can lead to problems and maybe an outright ban on caches.

Edited January 7, 2014 by wmpastor

[+L0ne.R]

This happened in Arizona on State Trust Land. Cachers started placing caches without permission, breaking guidelines and hundreds of caches were forced removed by the Land Manager. This was a case of 90% of caches were placed without permission so it must be OK.

I think there was more to that story and it had more to do with a an immediate reaction made without examining causes or facts, and heresay evidence of a problem. Land managers see destruction in an area, there's a cache within half a mile of that spot therefore geocachers did it. I could be remembering wrong. Perhaps a geocaching historian could chime in.

[+jellis]

I don't know if it was mentioned but to possible help prevent others from just placing caches on the property without permission and I saw your cache page which looks good, but maybe add something like "Placed by permission from.....". That will show you obtain permission and any future hiders would probably contact you to ask how they can.

[+justintim1999]

I don't know if it was mentioned but to possible help prevent others from just placing caches on the property without permission and I saw your cache page which looks good, but maybe add something like "Placed by permission from.....". That will show you obtain permission and any future hiders would probably contact you to ask how they can.

 

The land managers and our local reviewer have been in contact with each other. Our reviewer is now aware of the process required to place caches on the property. This is somthing I should have done in the beginning.

Edited January 7, 2014 by justintim1999

[+geodarts]

I don't think you should have approached them for permission, thus creating a Geocaching Policy where none previously existed.

 

The "Frisbee rule" is good because it highlights "implied permission." In other words, routine, safe, non-destructive, legal activities that don't interfere with others are generally okay on public land.

 

The "Frisbee Rule" only goes so far. Most (if not all) public lands where I live have rules so that a frisbee (or any other property) would be considered to be abandoned and confiscated if it were left there over 12 hours. And of course not every area in a park may be appropriate for frisbees, and those areas that are appropriate may not be the best areas for caching.

 

I don't know if we need to have a lengthy discussion for the purposes of this thread about what the limits of "implied permission" might be, but there are some land managers that do not consider geocaching to be routine or non-destructive -- a park official has told me that he considers caches to be litter and will never approve them. Regardless of whether you believe in implied permission, it is important to have a very good understanding of park rules and policies governing particular areas before making any assumptions about what may or may not be permitted.

 

A geocaching policy can be a good thing. Some park managers have adopted very restrictive policies, but I have also seen a regional park system start to remove caches. Rather than "implied permission," they went with the "implied prohibition" theory that caching was not allowed because it was not expressly permitted. Local cachers were able to work with the park managers and ultimately they adopted a very open policy.

 

In this case, I think the OP did everything right -- he went to park officials and put in the work to allow caching.