Permissions

[+cache_n_out]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

[+TriciaG]

Why didn't you log that second one as a NA before someone put a throwdown there?

 

Might want to post a NA now.

[jholly]

[+TriciaG]

Off topic:

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side of the fence because that's where your neighbor's leaky septic tank is buried. - dakboy

Umm... ALL septic tanks leak. It's called the drainage field.

[+T.D.M.22]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

So what? You want proof of permission for every cache? Every one of the 2 million+ geocaches? And who's going pay for someone to organize all of that? And who is the person that will organize it?

[+T.D.M.22]

And what does a police officer not knowing about caches have anything to do with permission? It's permission with the LANDOWNER, not the POLICE. If you feel they should know, feel free to tell every single officer. Medicine Hat Police Service phone# is 1-403-529-8481. Redcliff RCMP phone# 1-403-548-2222.

[jholly]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

Permission or no permission nothing about the 1st one would be any different. Some nosy busy-body with a cell phone dropped a dime and gave the cops the license plate of the "drug dealer" and probably embellished the story a little bit. Cops follow up by looking up the plate number and going to the house of the drug dealer. Did the busy-body check with the store manager for permission? of course not. Did the cop check with the store manager for permission? of course not. If explicit permission existed it does not matter, the outcome would be the same.

 

With the second one the cell phone equipped busy-body just hasn't caught the "drug dealer" in action. Even if explicit permission was given would there be a different outcome if the cell phone busy-body came on the scene? nope.

 

Explicit permission in these cases do not change the outcomes.

Edited February 13, 2014 by jholly

[+SirDonB]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

So what? You want proof of permission for every cache? Every one of the 2 million+ geocaches? And who's going pay for someone to organize all of that? And who is the person that will organize it?

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

[+RIclimber]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

So what? You want proof of permission for every cache? Every one of the 2 million+ geocaches? And who's going pay for someone to organize all of that? And who is the person that will organize it?

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

Then the number of new caches will drop by 95% and the FTF Hounds/Number Whores will have no reason to spend the $30/year. Groundspeak will never do something that will hurt their pocketbook!

[+T.D.M.22]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

So what? You want proof of permission for every cache? Every one of the 2 million+ geocaches? And who's going pay for someone to organize all of that? And who is the person that will organize it?

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

Yes it's simple to implement it in the future. It's quite easy to lie. "Dear Sir, or Madam. I hereby give the geocacher known as T.D.M.22 permission to place a cache on the mall property. Sincerely Billy Bob Robertson, Property Manager, XYZ Mall."

 

And again, with over 2 million caches placed it would be pointless unless they retroactively do that on all other caches. 1000 caches in my city, less than 10 placed in the last 3 months. Let's say that trend continues, then less than 2% of caches will have it. Are you going to work to get that info on all 2 million caches already placed.

 

And again, what about the people calling the cops? It doesn't matter if I'm caching, having a picnic, playing basketball, or just waiting for a taxi, if someone calls the cops and says I'm dealing drugs, they'll still come. After all how is the cop supposed to know if he can't see me.

 

So explain how permission will cut down on people who are neither cachers, the CO, or the person who gave permission, not knowing what's happening.

[+Manville Possum]

Let us limit hides to PM's only and require permits and contact numbers before the listings are published. Or we can police the site ourselves and post NA when needed and let the local volunteer reviewer take care of it. Snitching in the forums is just for drama.

[+T.D.M.22]

Let us limit hides to PM's only and require permits and contact numbers before the listings are published. Or we can police the site ourselves and post NA when needed and let the local volunteer reviewer take care of it. Snitching in the forums is just for drama.

:ph34r:

I can write permission slips, and make up names. $50 per cache, or $175 for 3. I will also do $3000 per 100 caches for a powertrail. You save $2000 that way. i can mail, or fax them to you.

 

PS, for all the mods I'm kidding.

 

[Mods&Lakeys can't read this] PPS I'm not kidding. [/Mods&Lakeys can't read this]

 

:ph34r:

Edited February 13, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[Clan Riffster]

It's quite easy to lie.

Yes, it is. For some. However, deciding against a particular policy simply because there is the potential for a small percentage of folks to fib seems a bit defeatist to me. Might as well just toss all the guidelines in the trash, since a dishonest person could circumvent them. Why not decide, one way or another, based solely on the merits of a proposed rule? I think you made a good point with your comment regarding existing caches. There really is no reasonable way to fix them. The most we can do is look to the future. Should Groundspeak require document submission for every future cache, placed on private property? I don't think such an addition would be very practical. It seems like it would take a whole bunch of data storage. With just a few expended pixels, I can type contact information in a Reviewer note.

 

it would be pointless....

No more, or less, pointless than requiring permission on any other cache. I have long scratched my head at the apparent contradiction displayed by Groundspeak where permissions are discussed. If I hide a cache in a public park, (where the locals have a permit process), I must show that I received explicit permission, even though my tax dollars helped purchase the land. But if I want to hide a cache on private property, such as the parking lot of a Wally World, I don't have to show that I received permission, even though the guidelines specifically require that I do so.

[+SirDonB]

With all the park restrictions and permissions - when is doublespeak going to require PnG hiders to show proof of permission?

 

Here's and exmaple:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4THGC

 

Here's one where I was greeted by the cop and it is back in business

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HBE4

 

So what? You want proof of permission for every cache? Every one of the 2 million+ geocaches? And who's going pay for someone to organize all of that? And who is the person that will organize it?

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

Yes it's simple to implement it in the future. It's quite easy to lie. "Dear Sir, or Madam. I hereby give the geocacher known as T.D.M.22 permission to place a cache on the mall property. Sincerely Billy Bob Robertson, Property Manager, XYZ Mall."

 

So explain how permission will cut down on people who are neither cachers, the CO, or the person who gave permission, not knowing what's happening.

 

You had asked who would organize all the info and who would pay someone to do so... my responce was the simplest way to achieve that without the direct need for a paid person. GS would have an official form that would have to be submitted with the cache listing in order to be pulished. The reviewer just has to check to see that the official form was used and there. After that, random checks could be done since all the needed contact info would be listed on the form. If a CO is found to have placed a cache without permission, the cache is archived and the CO delt with however GS sees is fit.

 

As to how permission will cut down on not knowing whats happening, this is where one takes the time to educate about geocaching. I have had a few late night run ins with some of the local PDs in my caching area, after a few times of them showing up and talking to me, they now know what it is I am doing. I gave them my contact info, and once in a while, I will get a call asking if I am in some obscure location geocaching. I dont know if they got a caching account to check themselves or not yet, but when I get the call, I assist them the best I can. It is human nature that we tend to think the worst of someone if we dont know what is going on. I must say though, to date, I have not been accused outright of doing something illegal, so I consider myself pretty lucky. So again, the best we can do is educate those we can when the opportunity arises, then move on to the next cache.

[+SirDonB]

It's quite easy to lie.

Yes, it is. For some. However, deciding against a particular policy simply because there is the potential for a small percentage of folks to fib seems a bit defeatist to me. Might as well just toss all the guidelines in the trash, since a dishonest person could circumvent them. Why not decide, one way or another, based solely on the merits of a proposed rule? I think you made a good point with your comment regarding existing caches. There really is no reasonable way to fix them. The most we can do is look to the future. Should Groundspeak require document submission for every future cache, placed on private property? I don't think such an addition would be very practical. It seems like it would take a whole bunch of data storage. With just a few expended pixels, I can type contact information in a Reviewer note.

 

it would be pointless....

No more, or less, pointless than requiring permission on any other cache. I have long scratched my head at the apparent contradiction displayed by Groundspeak where permissions are discussed. If I hide a cache in a public park, (where the locals have a permit process), I must show that I received explicit permission, even though my tax dollars helped purchase the land. But if I want to hide a cache on private property, such as the parking lot of a Wally World, I don't have to show that I received permission, even though the guidelines specifically require that I do so.

 

This last part goes back to what have been saying and asking since I read the guidelines and found the forums... What is the differance between public and private property? I personally see non as all land with maybe excetion to native american reservations, are owned by some entidy, either person, company, or government, at least here in the United States. As far as how other contries clasify it, I have no idea.

 

Maybe that is why GS has the contradiction on permission... if it is known that certian parks or cities require a permit or permission, then it is enforced, and as to wally world, no one has complained that I know of and so it sits in the grey zone, until the land owner of wally worlds parking lot puts a stop to it unless permission is granted, they will be be allowed under assumption.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why didn't you log that second one as a NA before someone put a throwdown there?

 

Might want to post a NA now.

 

Not only did someone throw down after the the OP was forced by a Police Officer to take the cache with them, one could interpret the last sentence of the throwdowners "find" log taking a jab at the OP for not being "stealthy enough". That would make my blood boil. Actually, no it wouldn't it would have been on my ignore list, and I never would have been there in the first place.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

This last part goes back to what have been saying and asking since I read the guidelines and found the forums... What is the differance between public and private property? I personally see non as all land with maybe excetion to native american reservations, are owned by some entidy, either person, company, or government, at least here in the United States. As far as how other contries clasify it, I have no idea.

 

Maybe that is why GS has the contradiction on permission... if it is known that certian parks or cities require a permit or permission, then it is enforced, and as to wally world, no one has complained that I know of and so it sits in the grey zone, until the land owner of wally worlds parking lot puts a stop to it unless permission is granted, they will be be allowed under assumption.

 

I think the parks-well that is only enforced if there is a complaint from the parks department, or forest preserve, or what-have-you. Now if my local wally-world complained, then I fully expect it to be enforced in my city. If the wally-world corporation complained then I would expect all hides at any wally-world be dis-allowed-that is as long as the reviewer knows the cache is on wally-world property, but that's not for this discussion.

 

As for private/public property, it would be interesting to know what Groundspeak considered what. I live in Alberta, and as far as I know, public property is anything the public has reasonable access. City parks, parking lots, malls, hospitals. As opposed to private, such as homes, (or anywhere you would have to ask permission to enter) and one place could be both-the dining room VS the kitchen of a restaurant.

[+Manville Possum]

Let us limit hides to PM's only and require permits and contact numbers before the listings are published. Or we can police the site ourselves and post NA when needed and let the local volunteer reviewer take care of it. Snitching in the forums is just for drama.

:ph34r:

I can write permission slips, and make up names. $50 per cache, or $175 for 3. I will also do $3000 per 100 caches for a powertrail. You save $2000 that way. i can mail, or fax them to you.

 

PS, for all the mods I'm kidding.

 

[Mods&Lakeys can't read this] PPS I'm not kidding. [/Mods&Lakeys can't read this]

 

:ph34r:

I did get checked at a local State Park by the Tennessee reviewer before the cache could be published and I had already included in the short description that I had a permit on file. I also had to "sponsor" another account that placed a cache at their work place in a McD's parking lot. I work with reviewers and land managers, so I don't see a problem when questioned, I have the answer.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I also had to "sponsor" another account that placed a cache at their work place in a McD's parking lot.

What does that mean?

[+niraD]

So instead of adequate permission, or even explicit permission, every geocache would need explicit written permission. And geocaching.com would have hundreds of copies of this PDF file uploaded, and hundreds of copies of this PDF file uploaded, and hundreds of copies of this document uploaded, and so on, and so on... And as has been pointed out, none of this would have affected the situations described in the logs referenced by the OP.

 

Yeah, Groundspeak should get right on that...

[+wmpastor]

Why didn't you log that second one as a NA before someone put a throwdown there?

 

Might want to post a NA now.

 

Not only did someone throw down after the the OP was forced by a Police Officer to take the cache with them, one could interpret the last sentence of the throwdowners "find" log taking a jab at the OP for not being "stealthy enough". That would make my blood boil. Actually, no it wouldn't it would have been on my ignore list, and I never would have been there in the first place.

Read the log in the second example shown earlier. The previous finder on the same day as the family visited at home by police wasn't stealthy enough. It was a park & grab frozen shut. He posted that he had to "chop it out." Bad move! In the middle of a parking lot! That caught someone's attention. The unlucky cacher came later the same day & was seen by the busy-body who called the police.

 

The lack of stealth - chopping open a frozen lamppost - caused the entire problem.

[+Manville Possum]

I also had to "sponsor" another account that placed a cache at their work place in a McD's parking lot.

What does that mean?

It means I had to say I would help maintain the listing. The account came back to a user 175 miles away, it was created in Chattanooga, Tennessee as a group account for some collage student spending the summer there. The main account user moved and forgot to update their location, the local reviewer denied the cache and asked if someone local could help maintain it, like a vacation cache. I agreed to do so.

[4wheelin_fool]

I can recall when there wasn't any caches hidden on private commercial property. There wasn't very many calls to the bomb squad, or much police contact either. Then they started to get popular and several people protested but were told to ignore them or filter them out. If they get any more popular the game will be restricted one way or another, as they provide the perfect cover for scrap metal and other types of theft, as well as gauging the impact of suspicious activity. There was a series hidden on Cracker Barrel property at one time which coincidentally is the only restaurant to leave antiques and rocking chairs out, exposed and vulnerable to theft. There are plenty of other businesses that leave other valuable items out, such as blue "chep" pallets that are worth up to $30 each. "I'm geocaching, officer", only goes so far..

Edited February 13, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

Why didn't you log that second one as a NA before someone put a throwdown there?

 

Might want to post a NA now.

 

Not only did someone throw down after the the OP was forced by a Police Officer to take the cache with them, one could interpret the last sentence of the throwdowners "find" log taking a jab at the OP for not being "stealthy enough". That would make my blood boil. Actually, no it wouldn't it would have been on my ignore list, and I never would have been there in the first place.

Read the log in the second example shown earlier. The previous finder on the same day as the family visited at home by police wasn't stealthy enough. It was a park & grab frozen shut. He posted that he had to "chop it out." Bad move! In the middle of a parking lot! That caught someone's attention. The unlucky cacher came later the same day & was seen by the busy-body who called the police.

 

The lack of stealth - chopping open a frozen lamppost - caused the entire problem.

 

The cache and lack of permission caused the problem. Period. Blame the guy who naively believes the CO went and told everyone about it? Stealth is for protecting the cache from being stolen, not as a subsitute for the COs failure to communicate with the property manager.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

It is that simple to implement. As also stated, it is that simple to fake. A "proof of permission" is only good if it can be verified. Who is going to verify those submissions? The reviewers? Every time a cache submission comes in, they'd have to check to see if permission really was sought/granted. I doubt they'd continue to check every single time and it wouldn't be long and we'd be back to where we are now...CO's hiding caches without permission and noone really checking to make sure.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea but it's one I'd run by reviewers first...after all, it would only increase their workload, which can, at times, already be unmanagable.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

It is that simple to implement. As also stated, it is that simple to fake. A "proof of permission" is only good if it can be verified. Who is going to verify those submissions? The reviewers? Every time a cache submission comes in, they'd have to check to see if permission really was sought/granted. I doubt they'd continue to check every single time and it wouldn't be long and we'd be back to where we are now...CO's hiding caches without permission and noone really checking to make sure.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea but it's one I'd run by reviewers first...after all, it would only increase their workload, which can, at times, already be unmanagable.

 

There would be a sharp decrease in new hides if they introduced any forms. The reviewers would not necessarily have to verify them either, as they would only be brought out if there was a problem. If the CO faked it, I would imagine that could be the end of hiding for them. End of story.

[+Tassie_Boy]

 

This could be done very simply if GS wanted to... all they have to do is add a place where you upload a copy of the written proof of permission during the cache submission process. No need to pay someone to organize all of that. And reviewers simply do not publish a cache without that uploaded copy of permission. It is that simple.

 

It is that simple to implement. As also stated, it is that simple to fake. A "proof of permission" is only good if it can be verified. Who is going to verify those submissions? The reviewers? Every time a cache submission comes in, they'd have to check to see if permission really was sought/granted. I doubt they'd continue to check every single time and it wouldn't be long and we'd be back to where we are now...CO's hiding caches without permission and noone really checking to make sure.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea but it's one I'd run by reviewers first...after all, it would only increase their workload, which can, at times, already be unmanagable.

 

In reality the permission wouldn't be verified at submission but it does mean that if any issues arise or if the reviewer suspects there may be in an issue (ie. GZ is clearly in someone's front yard/ a restricted area) they have a point of contact to check it out rather than the usual poo fight that goes on between a Concerned Cacher/Careless CO/Irate Landowner.

[+Mudfrog]

Why didn't you log that second one as a NA before someone put a throwdown there?

 

Might want to post a NA now.

 

Not only did someone throw down after the the OP was forced by a Police Officer to take the cache with them, one could interpret the last sentence of the throwdowners "find" log taking a jab at the OP for not being "stealthy enough". That would make my blood boil. Actually, no it wouldn't it would have been on my ignore list, and I never would have been there in the first place.

Read the log in the second example shown earlier. The previous finder on the same day as the family visited at home by police wasn't stealthy enough. It was a park & grab frozen shut. He posted that he had to "chop it out." Bad move! In the middle of a parking lot! That caught someone's attention. The unlucky cacher came later the same day & was seen by the busy-body who called the police.

 

The lack of stealth - chopping open a frozen lamppost - caused the entire problem.

 

The cache and lack of permission caused the problem. Period. Blame the guy who naively believes the CO went and told everyone about it? Stealth is for protecting the cache from being stolen, not as a subsitute for the COs failure to communicate with the property manager.

 

You nailed it!

 

Sure, a cacher may get questioned by police even though the cache's placement has permission. Imo, this is one of the many duties my tax dollars pays police to do.

[+DanOCan]

There would be a sharp decrease in new hides if they introduced any forms. The reviewers would not necessarily have to verify them either, as they would only be brought out if there was a problem. If the CO faked it, I would imagine that could be the end of hiding for them. End of story.

Hiders already check a box that says they have adequate permission to hide a cache. Anyone who has ever had a cache archived due to a permission issue could be prevented from hiding a cache now since they clearly faked it.

 

Of course, I'm still not sure how explicit permission will prevent busy-bodies from calling the cops. It's not like their first call is to the landowner first to ask about these "drug deals". A nosy neighbor is going to call the cops whether explicit permission is in place or not.

[Keystone]

After discussion among the moderating team, we are closing this thread. The OP was very disrespectful of Groundspeak and very much off the mark substantively. So, it should come as no surprise that no Lackey or Volunteer has replied to the thread. Generally, we're happy to engage in constructive discussion on this or other subjects.

 

The OP is advised not to start another thread on the topic of permission, and if he starts a thread on another subject, to be more respectful of those he wishes to engage in dialogue.