Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
edexter

Landowner Data Base Access

Recommended Posts

      I'm based in Massachusetts but frequently cache out of state where I aslo place and maintain a number of caches.  I find I am more frequently asked to provide evidence of landowner permission in some regions than others so the implimentaion of policy appears to be different in different geographic locations.  This makes sense to me based on population density alone, but it also implies that Reviewers are in a position to be aware of areas where cache placement might be an issue and who has given permission in the past.  Lately, I've been asked not merely if I have permission but to document it by providing a name and phone number of who gave permission.  I assume the reason for this is so if there is an issue from a landowner The Reviewer can say "you gave permission to so and so, contact them."  So that means The Reviewer has a list of landowners or administrators who have provided permission in the past. If this is the case, then Reviewers should be encouraged to respond to the Question:  "who should I ask?' for permission, when they know the answer...

     Most of the caches near me are placed in placed in areas open to the public for a variety of activities (hiking, hunting, biking, boating) and getting specific permission for a cache is seldom needed or requested because it's clearly "ok".  Some privately owned properties have geocaching policies that they publish and some actively encourage caching but most are siient on the issue until asked.  Since the CO is entirely responsible for placing and maintaining the cache and following the rules, one area where a Reviewer, who has access to the details of many cache placements, could be of assistance, is in directing cachers to "who to ask".  What do ohers think?

edexter

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, edexter said:

  Most of the caches near me are placed in placed in areas open to the public for a variety of activities (hiking, hunting, biking, boating) and getting specific permission for a cache is seldom needed or requested because it's clearly "ok". 

 

Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ?   :)

We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow.

Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too.  Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from.

 - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now.

When we ask for permission, we know who we talked to, and provide that info.  Sometimes we write it on the cache page too.  

Some areas here have an open, "other use" policy, and the Reviewers are aware of some of them. PA Game Lands is one.

 -  The other 2/3rds and another cacher actual made sure that this hobby was included in "other uses" in one area.  It wasn't clear before...

IIRC, providing a name & phone number happens when enough people have tried to skirt the "ask for permission" thing, embarrassing a Reviewer or two. 

One locally has to do that now, after getting caught with a cache clearly on an area that needed a permit, but the coordinates were on the other side of a tiny brook,  in an "other use" property.    ;)

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The Regional Geocaching Wiki is linked from the permission section of the guidelines. Relevant to your hiding

Florida

Massachusetts

 

In Florida, the names of individuals that I've dealt with have changed so often through the years  that it's better to just have the basic contact info for the management office.   I've dealt with 4 different managers at Hillsborough River State Park, 5  at Withlacoochee State Forest, 3 at county preserves, and I couldn't count  in the WMA properties. 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I feel very confident that Greounspeak nor its volunteer reviewers have no "Landowner Database" as you envision, aside from the Regional Wiki that was cited earlier. As to why a reviewer is now asking for the contact information your specific landowner, perhaps there is an internal policy change for the reviewers, or maybe a new reviewer that doesn't 'know you' yet.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

In Florida, the names of individuals that I've dealt with have changed so often through the years  that it's better to just have the basic contact info for the management office.  

 

Exactly.  Our town/townships may change supervisors every four years.  All don't have parks staff.  

Our township now has a parks director that's shared with two other townships  :)

An assistant manager on one property (who's not too fond of this hobby), has stated that things will probably "change" if/when he's the director.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?

Québec and Nova Scotia were I cache don't even have one...

 

Don't know why they don't. That would be useful because they have different rules about Canada Post.

 

Edit Nova Scotia just have a little something related to covid in the wiki

Edited by Lynx Humble
More info
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?

 

When it comes to the Northern Territory, Australia one - yes, I would most definitely say that it isn't good enough. :P

 

I'm currently trying to create contacts with the local councils and land managers (not that there are many of them) and so far all I've gotten are automated "we've received your email" replies. I'll be moving up to phone calls and in person visits soon but figured I'd start with being polite first. On the plus side, one of the big three councils here has a "you can totally go geocaching on our land" page on their website ... though is quite silent on any guidelines for people who are looking to place caches. Maybe they think Groundspeak comes around and places them?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Québec and Nova Scotia were I cache don't even have one...

10 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

When it comes to the Northern Territory, Australia one - yes, I would most definitely say that it isn't good enough. :P

:D

Isn't a wiki an open-editing system that depends on others contributing to it ?

If you have knowledge of an area, it does say "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed."    :)

The Reviewers are at the top right...    

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

I'm currently trying to create contacts with the local councils and land managers (not that there are many of them) and so far all I've gotten are automated "we've received your email" replies. I'll be moving up to phone calls and in person visits soon but figured I'd start with being polite first. On the plus side, one of the big three councils here has a "you can totally go geocaching on our land" page on their website ... though is quite silent on any guidelines for people who are looking to place caches. Maybe they think Groundspeak comes around and places them?

 

The local councils here are largely silent on the question of cache placement; they're under-resourced and have far more important things to worry about. Council reserves, especially "unimproved" bushland, that are zoned for public recreation are unlikely to need specific permission for any non-destructive public recreation activity including caching. In NSW, it's really only national parks (and other reserves managed by NPWS) and some of the more developed parklands like Sydney Olympic Park or Barangaroo that have a formal caching policy.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

:D

Isn't a wiki an open-editing system that depends on others contributing to it ?

If you have knowledge of an area, it does say "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed."    :)

The Reviewers are at the top right...    

Only the reviewers can edit it.

 

If they don't provide the bone it's a bit hard to put meat on it....

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

Only the reviewers can edit it.

If they don't provide the bone it's a bit hard to put meat on it....

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

:D

Isn't a wiki an open-editing system that depends on others contributing to it ?

If you have knowledge of an area, it does say "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed."    :)

The Reviewers are at the top right...    

 

Or are you saying that you offered an area to a Reviewer, and they never included it ?  Thanks.  :)

 

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Or are you saying that you offered an area to a Reviewer, and they never included it ?  Thanks.  :)

 

Like I said if the reviewers don't even put any of the rules they are aware of (the bone) why sending mine (the meat)? BTW I don't own any meat that the reviewer isn't aware.

 

Groundspeak should ask their reviewers to use and populate the Regional Wiki.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To cerberus1:  Re: "Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ?   :)

                           We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow.

                           Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too.  Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from.

                           - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now."

      I hadn't heard of the "frisbee rule" but understand what you mean.  I'm actually refering to land use that is open to other hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and hiking which I consider equivilent to geocaching as they involve walking on the land while minimally disturbing it.  What you point out about getting permission and then having others not bother is the inverse of my point (other's didn't get [permission but I was required to) but it makes my point rather nicely:  Since a cache can't be placed without "The Reviewer" giving the "OK", that fact that you took the trouble to do so, and noted it, meant The Reviewer was aware of the land policy and who to contact yet they did not inform other cachers, nor follow the policy of the landowner which was known to them.  To me this is the same issue:  if The Reviewer is aware of a landowners policy then they should share that information.  The fact that contact people change all the time makes no difference.  They would supply what information they have and if it turned out to be dated, they could update it with the new info.  Sharing information on which office to contact even if who is changeable is an improvement over not sharing.  

edexter

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, edexter said:

I hadn't heard of the "frisbee rule" but understand what you mean.  I'm actually refering to land use that is open to other hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and hiking which I consider equivilent to geocaching as they involve walking on the land while minimally disturbing it.  What you point out about getting permission and then having others not bother is the inverse of my point (other's didn't get [permission but I was required to) but it makes my point rather nicely:  Since a cache can't be placed without "The Reviewer" giving the "OK", that fact that you took the trouble to do so, and noted it, meant The Reviewer was aware of the land policy and who to contact yet they did not inform other cachers, nor follow the policy of the landowner which was known to them.  To me this is the same issue:  if The Reviewer is aware of a landowners policy then they should share that information.  The fact that contact people change all the time makes no difference.  They would supply what information they have and if it turned out to be dated, they could update it with the new info.  Sharing information on which office to contact even if who is changeable is an improvement over not sharing.  

 

Exactly.  The frisbee rule.  Not sure where you're going with this though, but since you picked me...

Every property we place on we've asked for permission. 

 - Even the ones you consider to be "open to other hobbies".  We know that's not always true.  :)

In this one case, we got permission for placement.  We were allowed to place there simply because we asked.

They never heard of geocaching. We believe we were an experiment for a hobby they were unaware of.

There was no "land policy" for a Reviewer to note to anyone else. 

We assume that all others simply checked the box that they had "adequate permission". 

 

Near us is a good-sized dam.  We have three caches there now.

I hike, hunt, fish, and rock climb the area, and take advantage of the frisbee golf too with nothing other than showing up.

All else allowed, the USACE requires permission for geocaching.  This is a "land policy" that our Reviewers are aware of.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 2:28 PM, cerberus1 said:

You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?

 

Great post.  In one category of permission cases, this is the answer.  Most Reviewers keep the Wiki up-to-date with known land manager policies, often with links to the relevant website where the geocaching policy and application form can be found.

 

But there is another category of permission cases, for situations not covered by published land manager policies about geocaching.  These can be characterized as "exceptions to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines."  For example, if someone buries a cache on any property, then the Guidelines require me to confirm permission was given by the landowner, in order to make an exception to the Guidelines.  I do not know the name and telephone number/email address of every landowner.  I ask the cache owner to provide this information to me, and to edit their cache page to state that the cache is hidden with permission.  Until the cache owner does these things, I will not publish the cache.

 

Also, there is no master database of people who have given permission for cache placements.  The linked Wiki is the best resource for that.  Rather, information provided during the review process for an individual cache is preserved in the archived reviewer notes when the cache is published.  Those archived notes can be referenced if there is ever a question about that cache.  "Yes, Principal Smith, we understand your concern about the cache in the woods behind the school that the bomb squad visited today.  Please know that, two years ago, your predecessor Principal Jones granted permission for this cache.  Sorry that this information did not reach you as part of the job transition."

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Great post.  In one category of permission cases, this is the answer.  Most Reviewers keep the Wiki up-to-date with known land manager policies, often with links to the relevant website where the geocaching policy and application form can be found.

 

But there is another category of permission cases, for situations not covered by published land manager policies about geocaching.  These can be characterized as "exceptions to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines."  For example, if someone buries a cache on any property, then the Guidelines require me to confirm permission was given by the landowner, in order to make an exception to the Guidelines.  I do not know the name and telephone number/email address of every landowner.  I ask the cache owner to provide this information to me, and to edit their cache page to state that the cache is hidden with permission.  Until the cache owner does these things, I will not publish the cache.

 

Also, there is no master database of people who have given permission for cache placements.  The linked Wiki is the best resource for that.  Rather, information provided during the review process for an individual cache is preserved in the archived reviewer notes when the cache is published.  Those archived notes can be referenced if there is ever a question about that cache.  "Yes, Principal Smith, we understand your concern about the cache in the woods behind the school that the bomb squad visited today.  Please know that, two years ago, your predecessor Principal Jones granted permission for this cache.  Sorry that this information did not reach you as part of the job transition."

Another great post. While I may have missed it there is the basic concept of respect for the property of others. If I have the desire to place a cache somewhere the onus is on me to find out who owns the property before I place my cache on it. It's just that simple. And on the topic of "public property" to the best of my knowledge all property in the United States is owned by someone - a private person or organization or a governmental agency. In some cases a piece of property is made available for public use for a designated purpose like a ball park, picnic area, etc. But someone serves as the manager or caretaker or steward of these properties, and they deserve the respect of persons using the property.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, gpsfun said:

If I have the desire to place a cache somewhere the onus is on me to find out who owns the property before I place my cache on it. It's just that simple


Placing and finding geocaches is allowed by default in my entire country, provided the activity causes no disturbance or damage.* The regional wiki lists the known exceptions to the rule (e.g. restricted areas of national parks, railway bridges...). But the overreaching legal principle is that simply owning land does not grant anyone exclusive access to said land (or in other words, a forest is not considered private in the same way the immediate surroundings of an inhabited private residence are).

 

*Accounting for lazy parking and erosion caused by cachers makes this caveat fairly important, and your point about respecting the property of others applies.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 4:58 PM, Unit473L said:
On 10/23/2020 at 2:28 PM, cerberus1 said:

You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?

 

When it comes to the Northern Territory, Australia one - yes, I would most definitely say that it isn't good enough. :P

 

I'm currently trying to create contacts with the local councils and land managers (not that there are many of them) and so far all I've gotten are automated "we've received your email" replies.

 

Is your problem really that the regional wiki for Northern Territory is not good enough? It appears the problem is more that the points of contact listed in that wiki aren't being responsive.

 

Unless one of those points of contact also happens to be an Australian reviewer, a poor response time doesn't really appear to be something that the Australian reviewer(s) that maintain that regional wiki can really control. 

Share this post


Link to post

No, I don't have a problem - that's why I put a smiley on the end. The "joke" is that the NT wiki page has nothing on it (other than the current Covid template that appears on all wiki pages).

 

Right now, any new player needs to jump through a bunch of hoops on their own to try and find out who the right department / person is to ask. Sending emails to a councils' generic "contact us" email can get very different responses depending on who actually sees it. If the normal person sees it, they might direct the player to the appropriate "here are our policies on geocaching" page. If some bored busybody sees the email, they might take it on themselves to "sort out all this nonsense" and either try and implement all sorts of restrictive policies or submit lots of complaints about all the caches they can see - which if it comes from an official email, Groundspeak is compelled to act on, even if the complaints are completely groundless. That's an extreme case, but it's possible.

 

If you compare the NT page to, say, the Florida page, that one has loads of information and contacts divided up by region and county.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Unit473L said:

Right now, any new player needs to jump through a bunch of hoops on their own to try and find out who the right department / person is to ask. Sending emails to a councils' generic "contact us" email can get very different responses depending on who actually sees it.

 

We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... 

We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums.   :D

Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to.

 - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director).

We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too.  ;) 

The "wiki" is only reference.  It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..."

  - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner.

 

1 hour ago, Unit473L said:

If you compare the NT page to, say, the Florida page, that one has loads of information and contacts divided up by region and county.

On the page (to the right) it does say, "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed."

Why not be proactive and offer known areas to your Reviewers to get things rolling?   :)

 

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... 

We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums.   :D

Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to.

 - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director).

We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too.  ;) 

The "wiki" is only reference.  It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..."

  - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner.

 

Things are a bit different in this part of the world. Public bushland reserves are usually crown land so technically they're "owned" by the state government (or even perhaps Queen Elizabeth, not sure on that), but the state governments have offloaded responsibility for them onto local councils. But there's no person or department in the council that looks after them as generally there's no looking after to do, they're just natural bushland left to its own devices. If they catch fire, it's the responsibility of the Rural Fire Service to deal with it. If they flood and threaten houses, it's the State Emergency Service who gets called in. If a road or trail needs repair, that's a matter for the Road Maintenance department, and if anything illegal is going on in there that's up to the police to deal with. And speaking of laws, the local government laws and regulations are mostly written to prohibit things rather than allow them. For example, if bicycles aren't allowed in some places, there's a "bicycle prohibition" regulation covering that. Anywhere else, bikes are fine; you won't find a law or regulation that specifically allows bicycles. Usually, if there's an access point to the reserve like a service trail, there'll be a pictorial council sign showing what's prohibited, like this one:

 

20160806_201639.jpg.fe497fbb806068b886a6e637a0dcd0a0.jpg

 

Any public activity that's not listed there or otherwise generally illegal is fine.

 

Council employees are bureaucrats in the best British tradition and will only say yes to something if it's covered by a policy and there's a form to fill out and stamp. Those policies and forms generally have links to them on the regional wiki page, so if it's not there and you can't find anything about geocaching on your council website, then chances are there's no policy and it simply falls under the broad umbrella of "public recreation". Force a bureaucrat to make a decision and chances are they'll just say no to cover themselves from liability or reprimand from their superiors.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Re:  cerberus1 wrote:  "You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?"

 

Yes.  I am saying that.  The Wiki is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far nor cover a very large percentage of current cache placements.    

    Let me define the issue as narrowly as possible.   The goal is to have good caches placed in interesting area with the permission of the landowner.   The guidelines require that anyone placing a geocache get landowner permission.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a requirement that The Reviewer follows.  Let's say I want to place a geocache where one has never been before.  I need to get permission.  It's up to me.  I accept that.  I figure out who to call, get permission, place the cache.  No problem.  It's something I've done many times in several different states.  In my expirience permission, is either flatly denied without explanation, or granted after some process is followed.   

     Now lets say I want to place a cache where one or more caches have previously been placed.  Supposedly whoever placed thse caches, got permission, and passed that information on to the Reviewer.  It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request.  In the discussion above it was stated that if a landowner objected The Reviewer would relay the information to the landowner about who gave permission, so why not relay the same information upon request  to a cacher who requests it?  It is still up to the cacher to make the call, get permission, or if the "things have changed" figure out who to contact. Not a big deal to supply some possibly helpful information upon request, is it?

      For caches placed "where caches have been before" there are really only two reasons for The Reviewer not to answer "Who have other people contacted to get permission?":    1, The Reviewer has the information but chooses not to share it.  2, The Reviewer does not have the information because it was not previously provided. 

     This is an instance where the person enforcing the Rules could be helpful to the person attempting to follow the rules.  Why not be helpful?  If someone asked me "who did you talk to toget permission" I would be happy to pass it on.  Why aren't Reviewers willing to do so upon request?   

Edited by edexter
spelling error
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request.

 

In some cases that would indeed make placing a cache easier.

 

Unfortunately, as a reviewer I usually get the permission info on a confidential basis. That is, the landowner expects that it is not shared in any way. Over here in GDPR land there are even some legal restrictions on sharing such info.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose the Reviewer's Land Owner Database would be updated automatically, or are they responsible for changes in the property owner/manager information? If you think it is too much trouble to obtain ownership information and obtain permission, perhaps you shouldn't be a cache owner.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, edexter said:

 It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request.  

 

This is not a service which we are obligated to provide, as volunteers, although in many cases we will be able to help where information is readily known to us.  Typically, repeat questions (or the adoption of a geocaching policy by a land manager) lead to an update to the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki.

 

And, once again, there is no master database where all of this information is housed for every single cache.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, Keystone.   I have understood from your previous messages that their is no master database and am not suggesting providing information is an obligation.  I am suggesting that information, when it is available be shared upon request.  A comparsion of the Wiki databases and the actual placement of existing caches would show only a modest overlap.  In practice when I am placing a cache in a new area I determine who is the landowner and seek them out.  If it is a public area without a geocaching policy known to me but several geocaches already placed there, I assume The Reviewer is aware of the policy, and if not, is aware of which caches are on the property, and who placed them, so asking them to look and provide me with the name seems reasonable and straightforward.  On a dozen or so occasions I have contacted the cachers making the earlier placements to ask who they talked to to get permission.  Their responses fall into two categories:  1, They tell me who they contacted and what the result was, which is often helpful, or 2, They do not respond.  This is also the two rsults I get from asking The Reviewer:  some respond with helpful information and some do not respond to the request.  

I realize this is a volunteer position but surely the goal is to encourage quallity cache placements and providing information when known seems a reasonable burden.

Thank you.  

 

After reviewer the discussion I realized what I was asking for amounts to a suggestion to change or improve a geocaching.com policy so have gone to that forum and left the following:

 

I would like to suggest that geocaching.com institute a policy of sharing public information upon request about who provided permission to place a geocache.

For example:  If an existing geocache is placed in a public conservation area and information was provided to The Reviewer as a condition of the cache approval process that information is known by the Reviewer.  If I wish to place a cache in on the same physical property and ask The Reviewer "who should I contact to get permission?" ; The Reviewer provide what information they have.  For instance, a response might be"  "Well, that's a town conservation area.  So contact the Town Conservation Chairman.  It was John  Jones in 2018 but may have changed by now."  

 

      

  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post

There is hardly any unowned or unmanaged land left on this planet. Geocaching requires permission for placement of a cache. (Regardless of how many be placed outside of those guidelines.) 

 

Only a small fraction of that land is covered in Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki. But that is made available for you to use and follow up with to make sure the information current.

 

The few volunteer reviewers that there are do plenty of work, for millions of cachers, for no pay as it is. 

 

The fact that the onus is on YOU, not the reviewers, to use existing resources and guidelines (https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#permission), to get required permission for a cache or assure cache placement is permitted based on up to date information.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

RTCB:  You seem to be missing the point.  I accept that it is up to me to get permission.  I am simply asking for The Reviewer to pass on information they have already upon request to point me in the right direction.  Since I've placed a few caches I've noticed that The Reviewers responces range from "You should contact the Regional EEL manager" which is helpful, to silence, which is not.   Folks who place and maintain caches are also unpaid volunteers and some of us spend hundreds of hours a year doing so.  Passing on a name or a number when requested seems like a pretty small ask...At any rate I've add my two cents to the "suggestion box" and am hoping for the best. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, edexter said:

I accept that it is up to me to get permission.  I am simply asking for The Reviewer to pass on information they have already upon request to point me in the right direction.  Since I've placed a few caches I've noticed that The Reviewers responces range from "You should contact the Regional EEL manager" which is helpful, to silence, which is not.

 

What you're looking for may already be available to you. Have you tried looking at property parcel information in the appropriate county GIS mapping system?

 

23 hours ago, edexter said:

Folks who place and maintain caches are also unpaid volunteers and some of us spend hundreds of hours a year doing so.  Passing on a name or a number when requested seems like a pretty small ask.

 

First, this of course ignores the fact that every reviewer I know of has placed and maintained caches, in addition to their review duties. I can't say that maintaining my caches takes me hundreds of hours a year. Maybe a couple dozen. But reviewing caches isn't just reviewing caches. It's also keeping current on changes in the guidelines, discussing potential guideline changes with other reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys, and collaborating with other reviewers when I or they have questions about a particular rule or hide. And my alter ego @geoawareUSA9 reviews only earthcaches - I can't even begin to imagine how much time @Keystone or other non-geoaware reviewers have to invest with the thousands of cache submissions and emails they get a year.

 

Second, the landowner database you're asking for does not currently exist on geocaching.com. It would involve looking individually at the archived logs of millions of caches, archived and active, to compile such a database. Even if there was a script that could collect this information automatically, it would need to be checked to ensure it had properly compiled the information. That's going to take significant work.

 

Third, your database request also assumes that each landowner or land manager that gave permission also consented to having their name and contact information collected in an organized Groundspeak database and consented to such data being released to the public. In the light of recent data protection and privacy laws, it is unlikely that they were ever asked for such consent. So who is going to make those thousands of calls or emails to get permission to disseminate this information?

 

tl;dr: Neat idea, likely not feasible.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2021 at 1:21 PM, edexter said:

I would like to suggest that geocaching.com institute a policy of sharing public information upon request about who provided permission to place a geocache.

For example:  If an existing geocache is placed in a public conservation area and information was provided to The Reviewer as a condition of the cache approval process that information is known by the Reviewer.  If I wish to place a cache in on the same physical property and ask The Reviewer "who should I contact to get permission?" ; The Reviewer provide what information they have.  For instance, a response might be"  "Well, that's a town conservation area.  So contact the Town Conservation Chairman.  It was John  Jones in 2018 but may have changed by now." 

 

This is a more reasonable ask, except the part where you're basically asking Groundspeak to make the reviewers do more work than what we signed up to do, and create a system that allows a cache owner to pass some of their responsibility on to the reviewer. I guess we'll see what Groundspeak says.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

This is a more reasonable ask, except the part where you're basically asking Groundspeak to make the reviewers do more work than what we signed up to do, and create a system that allows a cache owner to pass some of their responsibility on to the reviewer. I guess we'll see what Groundspeak says.

It's unlikely to happen Groundspeak doesn't even require reviewer to fill in the regional wiki...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...