Jump to content

Permission? Yeah right.


Recommended Posts

A cache gets published and the hider seemingly has permission. Several geocachers arrive and notice signage which indicates that permission might not be likely. A few NAs later, the CO keeps on insisting it has permission, but then the manager appears with a GC account and says it has none.

 

http://coord.info/GC5EE0D

 

In this case, nobody is likely to be caught trespassing, or to get into any trouble, but I can envision other cases where the CO insists there is permission where there isn't any, and cachers could get injured or caught. How can you tell if permission is legit ?

Link to comment

Well here in Colorado it is fairly easy to tell what is public land and what is not, No Trespassing signs are noticeable and land parcels tend to be huge and well marked. Plus BLM doesn't allow caches, neither does the tribe, and the National Forest doesn't allow new ones, it concentrates the caching area a bit.

In Washington it was a bit more difficult, and the town I was living in has a bunch of public trails that are on road easements that well don't look anything like future roads. I usually went with a lack of No Trespassing signs and distance from homes to decide if the cache I was approaching was on public accessible land, also Washington has beaches so walking below the low tide line is legal anywhere but getting to the beach is another matter.

Link to comment

A cache gets published and the hider seemingly has permission. Several geocachers arrive and notice signage which indicates that permission might not be likely. A few NAs later, the CO keeps on insisting it has permission, but then the manager appears with a GC account and says it has none.

 

http://coord.info/GC5EE0D

 

In this case, nobody is likely to be caught trespassing, or to get into any trouble, but I can envision other cases where the CO insists there is permission where there isn't any, and cachers could get injured or caught. How can you tell if permission is legit ?

 

Well, you can't tell. And then there's always the case of getting permission from one person, and no one else knows about the the cache, and the bomb squad still comes out. In this case here, there's a pic posted of the "absolutely no tresspassing" sign at this lake. Is there a homeowners association anywhere in America who would approve a cache? I doubt it. And how funny the CACHE WRITEUP says nothing about having permission, and even goes on to pontificate on how it's legal to access the area. As in the thread title, "yeah right". :)

Link to comment

A cache gets published and the hider seemingly has permission. Several geocachers arrive and notice signage which indicates that permission might not be likely. A few NAs later, the CO keeps on insisting it has permission, but then the manager appears with a GC account and says it has none.

 

http://coord.info/GC5EE0D

 

In this case, nobody is likely to be caught trespassing, or to get into any trouble, but I can envision other cases where the CO insists there is permission where there isn't any, and cachers could get injured or caught. How can you tell if permission is legit ?

 

And now the FTF, who essentially admits that he blew by the "No Trespassing" on the way in ("I noticed it on the way out",) suggests that the CO relocate the cache and get it republished. I suggest that Groundspeak suspend the COs account for a while to let him/her contemplate the folly of lying about permission on the cache page.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

Welcome to geocaching in Joisey (actually, people from Jersey do not use that pronunciation. I hear it from New Yorkers)

 

Hey! I'm a Joisey boy! (Okay. Mostly a Brooklyn or Joisey City pronunciation.) But I know the largest city in Joisey is Nork. And our capital city is Trent'n. (The 'o' is silent.) (That's called glottal stop.) But you know when the New Yawk radio people aren't local when they cannot pronounce BERnardsville. No! It is not BerNARDsville!

Link to comment

Okay, the no-permission cache has been archived. You accomplished your mission.

 

The audience here mostly gets the issue and respects the rules, so we're preaching to the choir. Two of my four caches have written permission from an officer of nature preserve, and the other two have written permission from a township following my submission of the required written registration form.

 

How do you know if other caches are ok? You get a feel for it. And you read signs. And you know which areas are okay under the "Frisbee rule" of implied permission. And if the "vibe" is off, you go elsewhere. Perfect system? No, but what in life is?

 

Do you suggest emailing every CO of every cache you plan to visit to get more details regarding how he/she obtained permission???

Link to comment

Okay, the no-permission cache has been archived. You accomplished your mission.

 

The audience here mostly gets the issue and respects the rules, so we're preaching to the choir. Two of my four caches have written permission from an officer of nature preserve, and the other two have written permission from a township following my submission of the required written registration form.

 

How do you know if other caches are ok? You get a feel for it. And you read signs. And you know which areas are okay under the "Frisbee rule" of implied permission. And if the "vibe" is off, you go elsewhere. Perfect system? No, but what in life is?

 

Do you suggest emailing every CO of every cache you plan to visit to get more details regarding how he/she obtained permission???

 

The cache had been archived before the thread was started. I strongly suspect the OP knew that.

Link to comment

Okay, the no-permission cache has been archived. You accomplished your mission.

 

The audience here mostly gets the issue and respects the rules, so we're preaching to the choir. Two of my four caches have written permission from an officer of nature preserve, and the other two have written permission from a township following my submission of the required written registration form.

 

How do you know if other caches are ok? You get a feel for it. And you read signs. And you know which areas are okay under the "Frisbee rule" of implied permission. And if the "vibe" is off, you go elsewhere. Perfect system? No, but what in life is?

 

Do you suggest emailing every CO of every cache you plan to visit to get more details regarding how he/she obtained permission???

 

The cache had been archived before the thread was started. I strongly suspect the OP knew that.

 

It was archived several hours before I started the thread due to the actual property manager getting involved and I was keenly aware of it, so I don't know what the heck he's talking about.

 

 

This is a general discussion about areas that are off limits and where the CO has written on the page that it has permission. I don't know of any solution, but another series of caches comes to mind. There was a few archived elsewhere due to being behind posted signs. Afterwards the CO hid a few more with a line that the cache had permission of ______ township in the cache description. I thought it seemed a little suspicious, and I happened to know someone who worked there. I asked them to inquire about geocaching and they could not find anyone in any official capacity that had heard of it. I haven't visited the new hides, so I don't know if there is any signage prohibitions for entry, but if there is, I suspect that not many people may say anything with the false disclaimer on the page. I also wondered how often this happens.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

Link to comment

Well here in Colorado it is fairly easy to tell what is public land and what is not, No Trespassing signs are noticeable and land parcels tend to be huge and well marked. Plus BLM doesn't allow caches, neither does the tribe, and the National Forest doesn't allow new ones, it concentrates the caching area a bit.

In Washington it was a bit more difficult, and the town I was living in has a bunch of public trails that are on road easements that well don't look anything like future roads. I usually went with a lack of No Trespassing signs and distance from homes to decide if the cache I was approaching was on public accessible land, also Washington has beaches so walking below the low tide line is legal anywhere but getting to the beach is another matter.

Panther... Basically it is the San Juan NFS that doesn't allow caches. I wasn't aware that BLM there doesn't. Indian Nation excepted as they don't allow any at all. On this side of the Great Divide, the NFS allows caches as does BLM. :)

Link to comment
How can you tell if permission is legit ?

In short you can't.

 

Generally, most cachers informally review permission (based on their personal standards that vary widely) when they seek caches anyway.

You get a feel for it. And you read signs. And you know which areas are okay under the "Frisbee rule" of implied permission. And if the "vibe" is off, you go elsewhere.

 

This liesure activity is based on a degree of trust, if the CO indicates permission granted (and even when they don't) we have to assume they have done the due dilligence. To assume otherwise is unworkable for the activity.

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :) There were a few by the same CO that were archived right off the bat for being on posted land

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MRBB_new-hampshire-9th-state-of-50

 

But then new ones appear with permission stated on the page, and then they get archived by a lackey for not having permission. Hmm.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RCX4_colorado-38th-state-of50

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RQBZ_utah-45th-state-of-50

 

This isn't about most hides where the general public is allowed, but places that have signs prohibiting entry, but the cache page says go ahead in anyway. How often does this occur? Would you feel confident going someplace posted, with the cache owner saying its fine?

 

In the end, all geocachers are responsible for their own actions, but does that include knowingly posting inaccurate information on a page? Does anyone accept responsibility for that?

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :) There were a few by the same CO that were archived right off the bat for being on posted land

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MRBB_new-hampshire-9th-state-of-50

 

But then new ones appear with permission stated on the page, and then they get archived by a lackey for not having permission. Hmm.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RCX4_colorado-38th-state-of50

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RQBZ_utah-45th-state-of-50

 

This isn't about most hides where the general public is allowed, but places that have signs prohibiting entry, but the cache page says go ahead in anyway. How often does this occur? Would you feel confident going someplace posted, with the cache owner saying its fine?

 

In the end, all geocachers are responsible for their own actions, but does that include knowingly posting inaccurate information on a page? Does anyone accept responsibility for that?

Time to review Tort Law. The trick with torts is that they are different in every jurisdiction. As a basic concept, the tort of Tresspass is as follows:

Intentional Tresspass: Intentionaly going onto private land. (full stop) This tort does not care if you know it was private. It doesn't care if a fellow geocacher told you there was permission.

 

Unfortunatly, that is about all I can remember off had. All my layman law books are at home, so I can't look it up right now. Maybe try googling it.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

 

Time to review Tort Law. The trick with torts is that they are different in every jurisdiction. As a basic concept, the tort of Tresspass is as follows

Intentional Tresspass: Intentionaly goin onto private land. (full stop) This tort does not care if you know it was private. It doesn't care if a fellow geocacher told you there was permission.

 

Unfortunatly, that is about all I can remember off had. All my layman law books are at home, so I can't look it up right now. Maybe try googling it.

Here is a good link with some valuable information. Note that tort law is civil. There can also be a criminal aspect to tresspassing. I have never studied that, so can not comment on the criminal aspects.

http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php

Especialy relevent, scoll down to the section "MISTAKEN OR NEGLIGENT ENTRY"

 

Trespass to land is an intentional tort. However, intention for the act is required, not an intention to trespass. Consequently, deliberate entry is required and lack of knowledge as to trespass will not be a defence (Conway v George Wimpey & Co [1951] 2 KB 266, 273).

 

Mistaken entry (Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37)

 

In Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37, the D owned land adjoining P's, and in mowing his own land he involuntarily and by mistake mowed down some grass on the land of P. P had judgment for 2s.

 

Read more: Trespass To Land | Tort Law Lecture Notes | Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php#ixzz3FlBw5BXZ

Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :) There were a few by the same CO that were archived right off the bat for being on posted land

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MRBB_new-hampshire-9th-state-of-50

 

But then new ones appear with permission stated on the page, and then they get archived by a lackey for not having permission. Hmm.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RCX4_colorado-38th-state-of50

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RQBZ_utah-45th-state-of-50

 

This isn't about most hides where the general public is allowed, but places that have signs prohibiting entry, but the cache page says go ahead in anyway. How often does this occur? Would you feel confident going someplace posted, with the cache owner saying its fine?

 

Eeegads. The common thread so far seems to be inexperienced hiders. And a prolific inexperienced hider with more hides than finds, in this case. Would I cross the posted signs if the cache owner says it's OK? On a case by case basis, and in the case in New Jersey, and the cases posted above, with the hiders inexperience? Nope, not doing it.

 

Come to think of it, there was a case like this in my area years ago, but the cache owner claimed you could ignore the posted signs because the open woods was "foreclosed City property". Yeah right, on the grounds of an open factory? And it never appeared on the cache page, just via a note after several cachers questioned it. It might have lasted 2-3 years, but I ignored it, and never set foot on the property.

Link to comment

If a cache owner is proven to have deliberately provided false information regarding permission to place the cache, I would hope that, at minimum, cache reviewers would place that cacher on a "special scrutiny" list to help make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

--Larry

 

In other words, Double Secret Probation? :ph34r:

 

I've actually seen it. Once. Like in 2004 with a then 13 yr. old cache placer. He still caches, and is a College graduate now. Man, I'm getting old.

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :)

 

You're mostly correct, but there's more to it. It's a memorable cache for me because it was a long search in the woods, alone, I thought, until I saw the camoed hunter in the tree.

 

Where the cache was placed first was okay - except for the hunter who treated the woods adjoining his daughter's house as his turf. (Also, for safety reasons, the cache had to be moved.)

 

The second location may or may not have been on private property, but at least it was near enough to cause the nearby homeowner to complain. We've seen that theme before - houses on quiet street, public woods nearby. Neighbors walk dogs, etc. Suddenly there are cachers acting strangely. Beefing, then archiving.

 

A case like the one first mentioned came up here in the forum a couple of months ago. The cache was near the development's sign, and an irate homeowner told off the cachers.

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :)

 

You're mostly correct, but there's more to it. It's a memorable cache for me because it was a long search in the woods, alone, I thought, until I saw the camoed hunter in the tree.

 

Where the cache was placed first was okay - except for the hunter who treated the woods adjoining his daughter's house as his turf. (Also, for safety reasons, the cache had to be moved.)

 

The second location may or may not have been on private property, but at least it was near enough to cause the nearby homeowner to complain. We've seen that theme before - houses on quiet street, public woods nearby. Neighbors walk dogs, etc. Suddenly there are cachers acting strangely. Beefing, then archiving.

 

A case like the one first mentioned came up here in the forum a couple of months ago. The cache was near the development's sign, and an irate homeowner told off the cachers.

 

I think you're missing this one 4wheelinfool posted. On blatantly obvious private property, and the very short cache description tells you "should be a cache and dash", which implies you have to drive onto said property, not like take a 1/2 mile hike to it or something. :) The road to this business, which itself is way off the main road, is obviously posted, per the first two (and only) finders. One of the more clueless cache placements I've ever seen. Not that they ever lied about having permission or anything.

Link to comment

Well here in Colorado it is fairly easy to tell what is public land and what is not, No Trespassing signs are noticeable and land parcels tend to be huge and well marked. Plus BLM doesn't allow caches, neither does the tribe, and the National Forest doesn't allow new ones, it concentrates the caching area a bit.

In Washington it was a bit more difficult, and the town I was living in has a bunch of public trails that are on road easements that well don't look anything like future roads. I usually went with a lack of No Trespassing signs and distance from homes to decide if the cache I was approaching was on public accessible land, also Washington has beaches so walking below the low tide line is legal anywhere but getting to the beach is another matter.

Depends on what beaches. I lived shortly in WA. I was able to drive on some of the beaches which I was surprised about. Also in some of the lumber areas they allow caches. It's really fun when they hide them after the area has been logged and then the caches start to be difficult as the trees start to grow back.

Link to comment

Okay, thanks. In the limited number of caches i've found, I don't recall any where I was aware of a suspicious lack of permission issue.

 

I was FTF on one where after a good 20+ minutes of searching I saw a hunter in a tree who had quietly been there the whole time. The cache was moved because his daughter's house adjoined the woods & he was routinely out there hunting. It seemed dubious that even bow hunting would be okay in the suburbs, but that's another story.

 

Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. :)

 

You're mostly correct, but there's more to it. It's a memorable cache for me because it was a long search in the woods, alone, I thought, until I saw the camoed hunter in the tree.

 

Where the cache was placed first was okay - except for the hunter who treated the woods adjoining his daughter's house as his turf. (Also, for safety reasons, the cache had to be moved.)

 

The second location may or may not have been on private property, but at least it was near enough to cause the nearby homeowner to complain. We've seen that theme before - houses on quiet street, public woods nearby. Neighbors walk dogs, etc. Suddenly there are cachers acting strangely. Beefing, then archiving.

 

A case like the one first mentioned came up here in the forum a couple of months ago. The cache was near the development's sign, and an irate homeowner told off the cachers.

 

I think you're missing this one 4wheelinfool posted. On blatantly obvious private property, and the very short cache description tells you "should be a cache and dash", which implies you have to drive onto said property, not like take a 1/2 mile hike to it or something. :) The road to this business, which itself is way off the main road, is obviously posted, per the first two (and only) finders. One of the more clueless cache placements I've ever seen. Not that they ever lied about having permission or anything.

 

The locations as well as the account, are suspect to me. Not too interested in finding anything, but placing plenty of hides could indicate a sock. There's the motivation of wanting to loiter somewhere that is clearly not allowed for the purpose of theft, and creating a parade of people to blend in to.

 

I can understand the need to go someplace interesting that may be posted, but these are just part of a generic series with no pertinent information about the area. Not only is it posted, but the person has pushed it further by being intentionally deceptive about permission. Many would trust the judgement of a seasoned, and known geocacher, but an unknown person is a little different, especially when they are not being truthful. Unknown people lying should signal red flags.

Link to comment

If I have a question about private vs. public lands, I look at the area on our county GIS website. The counties near me (near MR. Yuck...) have a mapping website that shows land ownership. When in doubt, I'll check there. If it looks like its private, I'll inquire with the CO to verify that permission has been granted. I also have no problem erring on the side of caution. I'll stay away from a questionable cache until permission issues have been worked out.

Link to comment

You have to rely on the cache owners honesty or that the reviewer checks up on the validity of the permission. With all the caches reviewers have to process it's not realistic they would have time to check each and every one.

 

I always include the name of the person who granted permission as well as a means of contact in the reviewers notes. I think this is something that should be required when publishing any cache. I know there are a lot of "rebels" out there who are going to think I'm crazy and that's fine. By placing a cache on a piece of property without getting permission from the land owner or land manager is not only wrong but could wind up giving caching a bad name.

 

Placing a cache on a piece of conservation land could be potentially harmful. Conservation lands are designed to protect and promote ecosystems and natural habitats. By placing a geocache in these areas you could be inadvertently harming these habitats. But, by taking the time to work with the owners or managers of the property you can be guided to areas where caches can be placed safely.

 

It takes time to track down permission, that's probably why many don't do it. But in the end it's the right thing to do.

Link to comment

The topic is intended to be about prohibited areas with posted signage, in which the cache owner instructs geocachers to ignore, due to falsely stating permission on the cache page. Not ordinary geocaches on public property which may or may not require permission. Since I have noticed a few cases of this around here, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed any others. Mistakes are forgivable, but being intentionally misleading gets my ire up.

Link to comment

The topic is intended to be about prohibited areas with posted signage, in which the cache owner instructs geocachers to ignore, due to falsely stating permission on the cache page. Not ordinary geocaches on public property which may or may not require permission. Since I have noticed a few cases of this around here, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed any others. Mistakes are forgivable, but being intentionally misleading gets my ire up.

Most COs in the SF bay area are pretty conscientious, and more so lately than when I started a few years ago. I don't think I've ever seen a cache planted where the CO knew people shouldn't go. Naturally I've run into a few behind scary signs, but I'd say they were all within the bounds of being debatable whether they were a good idea, including a few where I would argue that they weren't a good idea but didn't consider the case clear cut. I'm not sure I've seen one that was clearly wrong, but they do happen and are quickly reported in my area. But even in those cases, my impression is that the CO just made a mistake and did not intend to put a cache in a prohibited location. For example, more often than not, an early seeker filing an NA leads to the owner moving or archiving the cache before a reviewer gets involved.

Link to comment

If I have a question about private vs. public lands, I look at the area on our county GIS website. The counties near me (near MR. Yuck...) have a mapping website that shows land ownership. When in doubt, I'll check there. If it looks like its private, I'll inquire with the CO to verify that permission has been granted. I also have no problem erring on the side of caution. I'll stay away from a questionable cache until permission issues have been worked out.

 

Hey, I know this guy. How'd he get 281 posts? Must be mostly in the Geocoin forum or something. :laughing:

 

Oh yes, I've been looking at my own Counties GIS for years. And I live like a mile from another County (and own several caches there), and look at that too, although it went online several years after my home County. And I have definately seen my own reviewer refer to my own Counties GIS when having to archive caches, at least 2 or 3 times.

Link to comment

If I have a question about private vs. public lands, I look at the area on our county GIS website. The counties near me (near MR. Yuck...) have a mapping website that shows land ownership. When in doubt, I'll check there. If it looks like its private, I'll inquire with the CO to verify that permission has been granted. I also have no problem erring on the side of caution. I'll stay away from a questionable cache until permission issues have been worked out.

 

I think this is the winner. Whatever the cache page says I'll make up my own mind whether I'm happy to attempt a find/retrieve.

 

I once met a really nice couple because it was clear the cache was on their back porch, and rather than just assume I knocked on the door to ask about it. I must admit I didn't expect to end up going onto their back porch through their house, but them's the breaks. Had there been no answer I'd just have moved on, I don't need the kind of unwanted attention it would draw had permission not been adequate.

Link to comment

Well here in Colorado it is fairly easy to tell what is public land and what is not, No Trespassing signs are noticeable and land parcels tend to be huge and well marked. Plus BLM doesn't allow caches, neither does the tribe, and the National Forest doesn't allow new ones, it concentrates the caching area a bit.

In Washington it was a bit more difficult, and the town I was living in has a bunch of public trails that are on road easements that well don't look anything like future roads. I usually went with a lack of No Trespassing signs and distance from homes to decide if the cache I was approaching was on public accessible land, also Washington has beaches so walking below the low tide line is legal anywhere but getting to the beach is another matter.

 

Here is the Colorado BLM web page on geocaching. It is not banned, although there are management considerations.

 

Geocaching is not allowed in national forest wilderness areas but here is the Pike-San Isabel's (southern Colorado) National Forest's statement.

Link to comment

Groundspeak has a policy requiring adequate permission be obtained by the CO prior to placing a cache. If the reviewer has questions on a particular cache, s/he can request the CO provide evidence of permission. That is all betwen the CO and the reviewer and happens prior to publication.

 

What that means is I have an expectation that I have permission to be on the property, irrespective of signage to the contrary. Does that mean I would go on a property with no trespassing signs every 25 feet, 3 strands of barb wire and searchlights? No, I wouldn't. I'm responsible for my own behavior wherever I go whatever I do. If I enter a property that is not posted, and am asked to leave by someone who appears to represent the owner, I will leave as a common courtesy. If for some reason the issue escalates further and the authorities become involved, my defense is sentence 4 above, although I have never needed said defense.

Edited by ras_oscar
Link to comment

This liesure activity is based on a degree of trust, if the CO indicates permission granted (and even when they don't) we have to assume they have done the due dilligence. To assume otherwise is unworkable for the activity.

Absolutely correct. It's really pretty simple...

 

Every cacher who submits a cache checks two boxes...one that reads "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

Guideline I.2 of the referenced guidelines reads "You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location."

 

As a result, to not have adequate permission and expose cache seekers to having to explain what they are where they are is disingenious at best and flat out dishonest at worst.

 

Bottom line: If a cacher does not know who owns/manages the land s/he wishes to place a cache on, the cacher can't possibly know what denotes "adequate permission" and should not drop a cache there. "Know before you go."

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

This liesure activity is based on a degree of trust, if the CO indicates permission granted (and even when they don't) we have to assume they have done the due dilligence. To assume otherwise is unworkable for the activity.

Absolutely correct. It's really pretty simple...

 

Every cacher who submits a cache checks two boxes...one that reads "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

Guideline I.2 of the referenced guidelines reads "You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location."

 

As a result, to not have adequate permission and expose cache seekers to having to explain what they are where they are is disingenious at best and flat out dishonest at worst.

 

Bottom line: If a cacher does not know who owns/manages the land s/he wishes to place a cache on, the cacher can't possibly know what denotes "adequate permission" and should not drop a cache there. "Know before you go."

 

... which is all well and good but the person seeking a cache still needs to use a bit of common sense to determine whether they are satisfied that hunting the cache isn't going to get them mugged/shot/arrested. We can say the person hiding it should have got permission but that's not much of a defence if Bubba is really hacked off that yet another person is rummaging around in his field and decides to start shooting.

Link to comment

There's adequate permission which is often assumed if the land is open to the public. Then there are instructions to disregard signage based on intentional incorrect information, also known as lying. Quite a big difference here. If someone states "I have permission, ignore the signs", and they don't, well...:mad:

 

Yep, but if you do ignore the signs and the cache didn't have permission I don't suppose an angry landowner is going to be too interested in hearing your excuse that you're looking for a sandwich box that someone else left and assured you it was OK to go and find.

Link to comment

I tend to let sleeping dogs lie. That is, unless there is a "No Trespassing" sign (or the like) when I get at or near GZ. I like to assume the best from people, and that they did actually follow the guidelines.

 

But, if like in your OP example, I'd report the same way. I'd just hope the owner would respond properly instead of assuming they had permission ("It's public land, officer!"), or all-out lying about having permissions.

 

ETA:

 

I also really don't like how others still logged finds after the Archival of a cache with circumstances...Rather, that the owner didn't go out immediately and remove it when they got busted.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I also really don't like how others still logged finds after the Archival of a cache with circumstances...Rather, that the owner didn't go out immediately and remove it when they got busted.

 

That's really odd. It was archived on October 9th, the same day as those finds.

 

Now it says October 8th.

 

I am 100% certain of this. Notice the Needs Maintenance log posted by the HOA? Its dated October 9th. You cant post a Needs Maintenance log on an archived cache.

 

This means that the archive note was edited at some point to reflect an earlier date, and not by the CO, or it would have an edit line.

 

:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Question about the above post - do you have theories about this "really odd" situation? You veterans may be better able to fathom what happened. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

New comment:

 

We can say the person hiding it should have got permission but that's not much of a defence if Bubba is really hacked off that yet another person is rummaging around in his field and decides to start shooting.

 

*NOTE to self: check Ebay for bulletproof vests.*

Link to comment

Question about the above post - do you have theories about this "really odd" situation? You veterans may be better able to fathom what happened. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

The cache was archived due to the HOA posting a NM, but with the archive log backdated a day, it could be interpreted that it was done as a result of something.that went on behind the scenes, such as permission being rescinded.

:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

Okay I checked the email. It was archived on October 9th at 2:41PM, but it appears that the archive note was dated for October 8th at the time by the CO. I didn't think that archive notes could be backdated, but apparently they can. I don't know why such a thing would be allowed either.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Ran into a similar situation today in my area. A new cache had published, and the first two finders indicated that they had to access it from the interstate. (Parking on the interstate, as well as hiding a cache on the ROW, is illegal.) I saw a dirt road near the cache and foolishly assumed the cache owner got permission from the landowner. I was quickly disabused of this notion by the landowner, who saw me drive in and followed me up the dirt road. He was nice enough but asked me to leave and take the cache with me. So now I have a lovely tin with swag in it, waiting to hear back from the CO.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...