The Good Ol' Permission Question...

[+Berserkr]

I have been monitoring the forum for a while, and reading up on getting permission for cache placements. My question is this; Some people say it is ok to place a cache on public land as long as the land has no rules against it. Others say it is never ok to place a cache on public land with out specific permission. I would like to know which thought process is more common, and more specificly, which is *correct*?

 

Thanks

Jeff

[+geckoee]

As you know from monitoring the threads this topic has been covered to great lengths. I would take all the comments you have read from the members here as well as the groundspeek admins and regional admins, and form your own opinion.

 

Maybe I'm not reading your thread right. Do you have a question that you have not already read an answer too? I sounds like you have already read the peoples opinions here? Maybe you feel it's time to take another pole of the permission question to see if anything has changed in a week?

 

This is not meant to be a mean post, or a flame. Just trying to figure out where you are going with this.

 

Edit: Just to re-hash a lot of comments:

Groundspeek requires "adequate permission" Some people see that as, "If there is no rule that says I can't, then why not" Others see it as "Ask permission for every cache" There are a lot of people in between.

Edited March 14, 2004 by geckoee

[+welch]

The best car ever made is really the ..... ?!

 

This is always always always going to depend on who you ask, and what they base their ideas on. You've read some of the other threads you say, can't you figure out what philosophies you agree more than the others?

[+Berserkr]

Ok, then let me rephrase it. Is it acceptable to cache approvers if no rules prohibit the placement of a cache?

Edited March 14, 2004 by Berserkr

[+welch]

Ok, then late me rephrase it. Is it acceptable to cache approvers if no rules prohibit the placement of a cache?

Lots of parks have no standing rules about caching. Is what acceptable to the approvers????

 

What I really think you want to know is this:

The approver is not going to ask if you go permission or from who in most cases. The guidelines of this site say you must have adequate permission (adequate being left to you to define), you agree to this when you check those little boxes on the bottom of the cache page. The places the approvers will ask (if you haven't already explained on the submission form) for a yes/no is when you're submitting a cache in an area with a known policy (ie some state parks).

 

/typos, clearity

Edited March 14, 2004 by welch

[+ironman114]

The *correct* one will be the one that *you* decide to follow, for it will be correct in your mind even if others disagree.

 

If you want to see which thought process is more common, reread the threads you say you have monitoring using the search button. While doing this keep a notebook handy to make a merk for pro or con. Be sure to watch for those who post several times to several of the threads about this or it will skew the talley by having some vote more than once.

 

Other than this I can see this thread becoming just another heated debate.

 

If you want an answer from the owner of this site, you can go to his profile and read all his posts to the forums and find out his opinion on just about anything.

[+geckoee]

Is it acceptable to cache approvers if no rules prohibit the placement of a cache?

Probably depends on the cache approver.

 

If I was placing a cache in an area that I thought might be a problem, before asking my approver, I would check what other caches are in the area, and contact the owners. Tell them that you are planning on placing a cache, and ask what they have done for permission. If you come up dry there, ask the approver.

 

my 2cents

[+Berserkr]

Since everyone is so emotional, Thanks.. I have enough information.

 

Thank you.

[+bigredmed]

I have been monitoring the forum for a while, and reading up on getting permission for cache placements. My question is this; Some people say it is ok to place a cache on public land as long as the land has no rules against it. Others say it is never ok to place a cache on public land with out specific permission. I would like to know which thought process is more common, and more specificly, which is *correct*?

 

Thanks

Jeff

Depends on the specific piece of land.

 

A given piece of land might be run by a cacher. Go for it.

A given piece of land might be run by an enviro-elitist, you will probably get yourself or your fellow cachers in trouble without permission.

 

Always best to contact the land manager for the piece of land and ask. You can let that slide to some extent if there are caches there already.

[+Berserkr]

Is it acceptable to cache approvers if no rules prohibit the placement of a cache?

Probably depends on the cache approver.

 

If I was placing a cache in an area that I thought might be a problem, before asking my approver, I would check what other caches are in the area, and contact the owners. Tell them that you are planning on placing a cache, and ask what they have done for permission. If you come up dry there, ask the approver.

 

my 2cents

Ok, that is what I pretty much figured as far as the approvers. There are no other caches in the area, but it is County Public Natural Reserved Land, laden with hiking trails. I'll try calling the county during the week.

 

Thanks Again.

[+briansnat]

have been monitoring the forum for a while, and reading up on getting permission for cache placements. My question is this; Some people say it is ok to place a cache on public land as long as the land has no rules against it. Others say it is never ok to place a cache on public land with out specific permission. I would like to know which thought process is more common, and more specificly, which is *correct*?

 

With close to 100,000 caches out there, I sincerly doubt most of them have permission.

I have 218 finds and only 1, or 2 specifically mentioned that they had permission on the page. Others may have, but I doubt it. So I'd have to say that those who believe that no permission is required where there are no rules are in the vast majority.

 

As to what is "correct", since the website is listing these caches, it's safe to assume its OK with them. Their policy requires "adequate permission". If no permission is required to place a cache, then you already have adequate permission.,

Edited March 14, 2004 by briansnat

[+Berserkr]

With close to 100,000 caches out there, I sincerly doubt most of them have permission.

I have 218 finds and only 1, or 2 specifically mentioned that they had permission on the page. Others may have, but I doubt it. So I'd have to say that those who believe that no permission is required where there are no rules are in the vast majority.

 

As to what is "correct", since the website is listing these caches, it's safe to assume its OK with them. Their policy requires "adequate permission". If no permission is required to place a cache, then you already have adequate permission.,

Thank you, Briansnat that is very helpful!

[+flask]

when i have permission, i usually don't say so on the cache page, although often permission is implied with phrases such as "the landowner prefers that you....".

 

the definitive answer to the permission question is absolutely yes, sometimes, and nearly never. depends.