Massachusetts - or Any NE State - DOT Policies?

[+alanine]

Hey, folks:

 

After saying "gee, I should try geocaching" for almost as long as the activity has existed, I finally got around to taking it up this summer. So I'm a newbie, but not completely clueless.

 

Having found a few dozen caches and informally "adopted" one, I'm getting ready to make my first hide in a local park. I picked a good spot, got the materials, and then called the town's parks department (Longmeadow, MA) for permission. The clerk had heard of geocaching, which was a relief, but her awareness seemed coincidental and didn't extend to the mechanics of cache placement. For example, she initially wanted to hand me off to the Public Works department because she thought I'd be digging a hole for this. Given that there are over a dozen caches already in town parks, it seemed odd that the parks department wasn't more aware of the activity. Of course I didn't say anything about the other caches, but it got me wondering about something.

 

When you can't find a written policy for the authority in charge of the public land where you want to hide a cache, do you bother tracking down explicit permission? Or is permission presumed for public hides in the absence of a known policy? The guidelines are pretty clear, but it seems actual practice may differ.

 

In the case of my first hide I've already chosen my path, and hope to hear back from the parks department soon (the clerk referred my request to the department's director). However, I've also been thinking about another cache placement where prodding - or even finding - the responsible officials could be excruciating at best, and at worst could draw unwanted attention to a slew of other caches around the state. The spot I have in mind is in some bushes beside a highway. Access is easy from a very quiet side road, there are plenty of shrubs and trees on the embankment for the hide, and I'm on good terms with the only business on the side street so I could make them aware of it. But the spot itself is on property controlled by MassDOT.

 

I can't find an official MassDOT policy on geocaching. Searching other state DOTs and the forums leads me to believe that most states don't have such a policy, and the two that do aren't encouraging. Wisconsin bans it outright (http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/travel/road/rest-areas/guidelines.aspx). Minnesota simultaneously bans it (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/policy.html) and provides an online form permitting it (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/restareas/register.html), which I guess just shows that cold weather kills brain cells. And that's it. There's a forum thread asking for other state highway policies (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=320634&st=0&p=5362423&hl=state%20dot&fromsearch=1entry5362423), but it just devolves into people praising roadside caches without anyone answering the question.

 

The Groundspeak wiki page for Massachusetts is mute on MassDOT. I assume that if there was some known procedure, it would be mentioned there, e.g. "file a form 27B/6 with the Division of XYZ at this address." This leaves two possibilities. Either everyone who's hidden the dozens (hundreds?) of caches currently on MassDOT property has laboriously picked their way through this massive bureaucracy and gotten explicit permission, but hasn't bothered to tell anyone else how to do it, or nobody cares.

 

So which is it? Does everyone else just check the "I have permission to place this cache" box without worrying about it, or is there some secret handshake to find the official policies allowing these roadside caches? I think I know the answer, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it so I'm looking for good rationalizations.

[+Michaelcycle]

Not quite the NE but from the Virginia wiki:

 

Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") has prohibited all caches on property they own or maintain, thus no street sign caches, no guardrail caches, no median caches, no utility pole caches, no roadside caches, no historic marker caches (on/near markers maintained by VDOT, (see section on historic markers above)and so forth. In Virginia, the state has preeminence over local governments and localities may not set their own rules unless specifically provided for by the state. We have been advised that placing, seeking, finding or monitoring a cache on VDOT-controlled property will be considered a crime, a violation of Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code, a Class IV Misdemeanor. VDOT has extended the prohibition of geocaches to all Virginia rest areas as well as other VDOT maintained property.

[+alanine]

 

We have been advised that placing, seeking, finding or monitoring a cache on VDOT-controlled property will be considered a crime, a violation of Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code, a Class IV Misdemeanor. VDOT has extended the prohibition of geocaches to all Virginia rest areas as well as other VDOT maintained property.

 

That's precisely the sort of outcome I'm afraid of if I pester the wrong person at MassDOT. Conversely, if we're just stashing caches on DOT property without asking and they eventually find out by accident, that probably won't end well either. I'm really hoping to hear a better scenario here. Anyone?

[+alanine]

Okay, I think the silence and general avoidance of this topic - both in this thread and elsewhere on the forums - has answered my question. Thanks.

 

This bookmark list, which now has over 250 examples and is still growing, was also illuminating.

 

Now we can all return to not discussing the question of explicit permission.

[+edexter]

In the absence of a specific "policy" regulating geocaches by MASS DOT, I doubt many folks are getting permission to place a roadside cache. If there were a DOT policy in Mass and you placed one without permission, you would hear about it...

edexter

[+Traditional Bill]

What you're likely assuming your answer is would probably turn out to be correct. At least here in NJ, I've never heard of or seen anybody get permission to place a cache on DOT property. I see them get published regularly, though. Funny, you can stick a magnet on an electrical box with "assumed permission" and it will get published, but here in Jersey they want full disclosure of permission on any and all climbing caches because evidently ropes made to non invasively climb trees are considered invasive to the local reviewers.

 

Anyway, sorry for the rant. Just an estimate here, but I'm thinking it's a 99.9% chance that every MassDOT cache on your bookmark list has inadequate permission. Just like all of those lamp skirt caches that are in poles owned by the power company and local land owners. I'm willing to bet that they'd be thrilled to find out people are sticking their hands in and around the wiring on their light poles.

[+briansnat]

Okay, I think the silence and general avoidance of this topic - both in this thread and elsewhere on the forums - has answered my question. Thanks.

 

This bookmark list, which now has over 250 examples and is still growing, was also illuminating.

 

Now we can all return to not discussing the question of explicit permission.

 

The silence is more because the regional forums are not visited much anymore. Most regional discussions have moved off side to social media outlets.

[+alanine]

 

The silence is more because the regional forums are not visited much anymore. Most regional discussions have moved off side to social media outlets.

 

Perhaps the regional discussions have moved off-site, but I'm pretty sure my inference is still correct.

[+briansnat]

 

The silence is more because the regional forums are not visited much anymore. Most regional discussions have moved off side to social media outlets.

 

Perhaps the regional discussions have moved off-site, but I'm pretty sure my inference is still correct.

 

Actually 5-6 years ago you may have received dozens of responses. Anyway here is a oft quited post a few years ago from site volunteer, Keystone that may help answer your question.

Keystone on permission

[+alanine]

 

Actually 5-6 years ago you may have received dozens of responses. Anyway here is a oft quited post a few years ago from site volunteer, Keystone that may help answer your question.

Keystone on permission

 

Yes, I saw that post quoted repeatedly in my searches of the forums and on other sites. Short version: Groundspeak has plausible deniability.