Parking lots == private property?

[+user13371]

I logged a find this afternoon, and a few minutes later decided to requested the cache be archived. If it not for the no trespassing sign I probably wouldn't have bothered. But even without signs posted, just about every parking lot is private property. It'd be hard to do an urban-cache placement that ISN'T. So when should reviewers actually follow the guidance about requiring permission?

 

Edited January 27, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+Touchstone]

So when should reviewers actually follow the guidance about requiring permission?

 

Which "guidance" are you referring to?

 

But to more directly answer your question, I think that proof of permission should be requested when it seems unlikely that it has been given. The National Park Service is usually the classic example. Although not unheard of these days, I think it's reasonable for a Reviewer to ask for proof of permission when a cache placement appears to be on lands administered by the NPS.

[+user13371]

Which "guidance" are you referring to?

These listing guidelines, specifically these excerpts from "Off limit (physical) caches:"

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ... If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

I think if that was taken strictly, at least 90% of urban caches would have to be archived.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+Ecylram]

This issue is not "private property" vs "public property", the issue is "public access" vs "Private Access".

 

Public access parking lots generally allow all kinds of activities as long as it doesn't disrupt the neighboring businesses. Generally, signs are posted for unallowed activities or security will ask the parties to leave. Thats why you don't see people getting trespassing tickets for parking lot meets, changing windshield wipers, adding oil or washer fluid to the car or other innocuous activities.

 

The flip side is also true, public property does not equal "public access" as all sorts of publicly-owned properties do not allow or tolerate geocachiing and other activities.

 

You posted a sign for a parking lot that is not public access and it would appear that cache shouldn't be there, but we don't know for certain. A lot of organizations have knowledge that geocaching happens on their properties and they let it be as long as it doesn't cause any problems. Which is why you occasionally see logs where workers at various businesses bring up "so, are you looking for that 'geo thing'?"

 

Of course, with nearly 1.3 million caches placed there will be an occasional bad placement. However, the system works remarkably well with the existing guidelines.

[+Touchstone]

I think if that was taken strictly, at least 90% of urban caches would have to be archived.

 

I personally wouldn't loose a great deal of sleep over such an outcome, but I will point out that the Off Limits portion of the Guidelines state "adequate" and not "absolute", or "required".

 

All the same, I support your decision to alert the Reviewer in the example you gave. In most of the similar cases that I've seen, it's usually been kind of an "oops" by the cache owner, who either didn't notice the signage, or it was posted after the cache was Published.

[+KI4HLW]

I logged a find this afternoon, and a few minutes later decided to requested the cache be archived. If it not for the no trespassing sign I probably wouldn't have bothered. But even without signs posted, just about every parking lot is private property. It'd be hard to do an urban-cache placement that ISN'T. So when should reviewers actually follow the guidance about requiring permission?

 

I agree a CO should seek permission, but to assume a No Trespassing sign means they didn't have permission is a big leap. I have a cache in a place with such a sign, it is my business and I gave myself permission to place it, and all geocachers to look for it. I also have a second cache in the works in another parking lot with such a sign, and yes I have permission from that business owner too.

 

Many businesses will place such a sign because it allows police officers to issue a trespassing warning/ticket on the first offense. Without the sign "undesirables" can return a second time before a warning/ticket can be issued, and yes these type of people know this. The act of having permission, or implied permission (aka. a customer) means you are not trespassing.

 

That said, if something led you to believe it may have been placed without permission you should feel free to contact the the CO or the reviewer, inform them of the situation, and ask if permission was received. Personnaly I would find it kinda offensive if someone posted an NA on my cache because they assumed I didn't follow the rules without asking me or the reviewer first.

[+cx1]

Oddly enough I have encountered more rural caches with issues with no trespassing signs then urban ones.

Most of the time the signage is addressed in the cache page so geocachers know that area is alright for them to seek the cache.

Seems like a good way for the cache owner to avoid unnecessary NA logs due to signs.

[Keystone]

More than four years ago, I wrote an essay on permission that still works very well. I either quote it or link to it every time this thread pops up. I hope you find it helpful, here in slightly edited form:

... I am happy to assist you by outlining how Groundspeak and its volunteer cache reviewers handle the issue of permission for hidden caches. ....

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

 

... I hope that you find this explanation helpful. It is not intended as a complete statement of the listing guidelines and procedures for dealing with permission issues, but rather as a summary. These are my words, and not Groundspeak's. The listing guidelines, and their application to specific fact situations by Groundspeak and its volunteers, always control.

[Mr.Yuck]

Which "guidance" are you referring to?

These listing guidelines, specifically these excerpts from "Off limit (physical) caches:"

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ... If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

I think if that was taken strictly, at least 90% of urban caches would have to be archived.

 

Probably more like 99%. As stated by Touchstone, the store parking lot cache crowd and it's defenders point to the phrase "adequate permision", and some will even argue until they're blue in the face that no permission whatsoever to place a cache in a store parking lot is "adequate" permission. Bottome line is, the reviewers assume permission, and hit publish, even though we all know there almost never is any. I've always predicted Geocaching will get big enough, and there will be enough store parking lot bomb squad incidents, that they eventually start requiring explicit permission for these hides. Could be next year, could be 2025. I promise I'll try not to jump up and down and say "I told you so since 2005" or anything.

[+user13371]

Thanks for all the feedback -- especially from Keystone, who covered it in fine detail. I'm pretty sure I read that essay a few years ago and it was good to have the refresher course.

[+dbrierley]

there will be enough store parking lot bomb squad incidents, that they eventually start requiring explicit permission for these hides. Could be next year, could be 2025.

 

Bomb scares by themselves probably will not result in Groundspeak requiring explicit permission for private-property caches. I believe it has been mentioned elsewhere in the forums that many, if not most, of all caches are unauthorized caches on private property. If that is true, Groundspeak might be receiving significant revenue (premium memberships, etc.) from the people who place and find those kinds of caches. In the future, there might be enough bomb scares and trespassing incidents to raise interest in a county-wide or state-wide ban on geocaching. I think Groundspeak might try to head-off such a ban by agreeing to give caches more scrutiny -- but only in the county or state in question.

Edited January 27, 2011 by dbrierley

[+StarBrand]

The reviewers that I personally know have told me that a surprisingly large number of parking lot/commercial landscape hides state in reviewer notes that they obtained permission for the hide. I would conclude that the percentage of zero permission ones was far less than some suspect.

[+geodarts]

Many people assume that just because they can walk through an area it is "public" for all purposes, including leaving a container and inviting others to come to find it (whether it be on a lamp post, news rack, landscaping, electrical box, or gas line). As a matter of law that is not the case. Even in my state, which recognizes that some private property takes on publlc attributes for first amendment purposes, courts have pointed out that stores invite people to their property for particular purposes. And in the case of a typical business or stand-alone store, that purpose is defined by the owner and limited to that. (Trader Joe's v. Progressive Campaigns.)

 

Since the guidelines call for "adequate permission," many people simply consider any "invitation" to use the property to be adequate. And as Keystone points out, Groundspeak in turn adopts a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" approach unless there is a specific flag. In some cases, in fact, caches have been approved that expressly warn about security cameras or encounters with law enforcement - or advise cachers not to tell the people in the building what we are doing. Even respecting the limitations of Groundspeak as a listing service, I would adopt a more proactive approach - at least asking how permission was obtained or why it is not needed.

 

Relying on self policing may work better in theory than in practice -- at least in my experience with trying to bring a cache behind no trespassing signs to the attention of the owner and reviewers. It was an exercise in frustration and the cache remained active until the inevitable encounter with an angry property owner. Having tried that route once, I doubt if I would try it again.

 

But if permission has been obtained it would help if owners so stated on the cache page.

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+KI4HLW]

But if permission has been obtained it would help if owners so stated on the cache page.

 

I always figured it could be safely assumed that the fact I posted the cache means I had permission and didn't need to state so on the description. I may rethink this now after reading not all COs play by the rules and now some cachers are hesitant to go to caches with such signs.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

The reviewers that I personally know have told me that a surprisingly large number of parking lot/commercial landscape hides state in reviewer notes that they obtained permission for the hide. I would conclude that the percentage of zero permission ones was far less than some suspect.

If that is indeed true, and I have no reason to doubt you, why can't the CO state that on the cache page as mulvaney also asked in the above post? It sure would make it easier to be poking around in a lamp post, or on a tractor, or a bush in a mall parking lot, if it was known up front that permission had been granted. Of all the park and grabs we've done that were on obvious private property, only 4 or 5 of them actually said on the page that the cache was "placed with permission".

 

That question not directed at YOU necessarily, just asking it for general input from everyone.

[+geodarts]

I always figured it could be safely assumed that the fact I posted the cache means I had permission and didn't need to state so on the description. I may rethink this now after reading not all COs play by the rules and now some cachers are hesitant to go to caches with such signs.

 

As a philosophic matter I rely on the owner's implied statement that the listing has adequate permission. As practical matter I assume that the cache does not have actual permission unless that is stated in the description.

 

If I decide to find the cache, I also assume that the most that will happen is that someone will ask me what I am doing and I may be told to leave (generally, employees have simply been curious abut why so many people go to a particular lamp post or what we are looking for around a bush).

 

Of course with Homeland Security's “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, which "encourages the American public to take an active role in ensuring the safety and security of the nation" by reporting suspicious behavior (at least at Wall Marts), the latter assumption may or may not resolve the issue.

 

But I am much more comfortable searching on private property if I know that the cache has permission. And there are some caches I have chosen not to do when that is lacking.

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[Clan Riffster]

My take on this matter is probably not a popular one.

I believe that any cache, placed on private property, regardless of access issues, should have explicit permission.

(no, I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen)

 

When I compare the guidelines to the tips on hiding a cache, I see an inconsistency.

In the guidelines, Groundspeak requires "adequate" permission.

In the tips section, the bar is raised a bit, stating that permission must be obtained.

I personally believe that parking lots are private property.

 

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

 

They get paid on a per-hide basis?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

My take on this matter is probably not a popular one.

I believe that any cache, placed on private property, regardless of access issues, should have explicit permission.

 

+1 (and to me private property includes parking lots).

 

And from the KB we now have:

 

Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

[+geodarts]

My take on this matter is probably not a popular one.

I believe that any cache, placed on private property, regardless of access issues, should have explicit permission.

 

. . . .

 

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

 

There are many of us who agree with the former so it might be more popular than you think.

 

The possible impact on revenue would be if some people decided that there are too many hoops and abandon Groundspeak to do one of the varieties of opencaching/navicaching/terracaching instead.

 

I tend to think that they must have gotten legal advice that a listing service should rely on the owners to follow certain guidelines rather than take a more active role. If push came to shove, this defense might be problematic, given the guidelines they do enforce and what might be considered a reasonable duty of care. But as far as I know, no one has yet presented Groundspeak with a bill for the expenses incurred by the bomb squad, by having certain businesses shut down for brief periods, or by closing off major highways due to inappropriately placed caches -- or even such things as the labor required to remove a cache.

 

To me, requiring explicit permission would create better relations with the community and serve our game well. If I owned a parking lot, I would want to be asked before a cache was placed in one of my lamp posts, around my landscaping, or on my electrical transformer box.

 

The "adequate permission" standard may work for some areas of public property, but I think that on private property, adequate permission is express permission and that some inquiry (or a change in how the guidelines are worded to remove any ambiguity) should be part of the process.

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+geodarts]

It is interesting that the Garmin caching site is a lot more explicit than Groundspeak's "adequate permission" standard (even if their statement is not necessarily accurate in other respects).

 

Seek permission first

 

If you’re hiding on public land, check with the authority that manages the land before you hide anything; the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both prohibit geocaching. If you’re on private land, ask permission of the landowner and make sure to abide by all “no trespassing” signs and fences.

 

Given their review process, I doubt that these guidelines alone have resolved this type of issue, but that is a subject for another thread.

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+currykev]

Hey Portland Cyclist.

Who has p*ssed you off today?

Or are you just bored with caches in car parks.

I feel an ulterior motive in this thread.

If not. I don't really care anyway.

Well done for logging the find though mate!

[+secretagentbill]

I always figured it could be safely assumed that the fact I posted the cache means I had permission and didn't need to state so on the description. I may rethink this now after reading not all COs play by the rules and now some cachers are hesitant to go to caches with such signs.

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search. So, yeah, if there's a keep out sign and you have permission that overrides it, it would be a handy tidbit of information to have before searching! The sign says what it says. How am I supposed to know that it doesn't really mean what it says unless the CO tells me. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that it was either placed without permission, or the signs were added after the fact (as happened with cache near my house - owner archived it once he found out).

[+Castle Mischief]

So you were concerned about the issue of possible trespassing, but not to the point that it stopped you from hunting the cache?

Edited January 27, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[Clan Riffster]

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

 

They get paid on a per-hide basis?

Only with the most convoluted logic.

 

To clarify, based upon my observations, which are limited geographically, and are probably biased:

 

I believe the game is going more mainstream every day. As a higher percentage of our populace discovers the game, we get an increase in the percentage of cachers fear burning a calorie more than I would fear being locked in a bunker with Rosie O'Donnell and a limited food supply. (insert made up statistic here:) if last year, 20% of cachers were of the park and grab bent, this year it's closer to 40%. Next year that number could be as high as 60%. (again, in case you missed it, these numbers are entirely invented and have no basis in factual data other than to represent a steady increase in my geographic region) Park and grab hiders focus largely on parking lots.

 

If Groundspeak took a stance on these hides, the park and grab crowd would be affected, as most (around here) have no permission. Because a lot of these park and grab hiders are premium members, any action that negatively impacts the type of cache they prefer, could conceivably impact their decision to continue paying that $30 a year.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[+NYPaddleCacher]

My take on this matter is probably not a popular one.

I believe that any cache, placed on private property, regardless of access issues, should have explicit permission.

(no, I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen)

 

 

Would you consider a general, public geocaching policy created by the property manager to be explicit permission?

 

I am thinking of an example such as a large private university. Typically, the property may be private but allows public access and may have a liberal policy about geocaching so that they don't have to explicitly grant permission for every cache placed on their property.

[knowschad]

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

 

They get paid on a per-hide basis?

 

SHUSH!!!

[+StarBrand]

...Would you consider a general, public geocaching policy created by the property manager to be explicit permission?

 

I am thinking of an example such as a large private university. Typically, the property may be private but allows public access and may have a liberal policy about geocaching so that they don't have to explicitly grant permission for every cache placed on their property.

 

I know a local parks department that allows Geocaching in all of thier parks and has expressed they DO NOT want to be contacted about each new cache.

[+TerraViators]

If enough property owners complain to their city councils and enough bomb squad incidents increase, or more suspicious looking geocachers cost police forces to waster valuable time, we may begin to see geocaching being banned in more towns and cities and possible legislation written by these entities. I'm sure it would happen if the unfortunate incident of a geocacher being killed by a paranoid land owner or police office ever occurs.

 

Eventually, the lack of requiring explicit permission will have to be addressed by GS.

[+StarBrand]

..., or more suspicious looking geocachers cost police forces to waster valuable time, ...

 

Eventually, the lack of requiring explicit permission will have to be addressed by GS.

 

I would propose that Police officers are making very good use of thier time and resources investigating suspicious looking anybody's. That what is they get paid for. Explict Permission will never stop a passerby from calling in a suspicious person report.

 

It is also well known that a few bomb scare incidents involving caches also included explict written permission.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

[+KI4HLW]

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

 

I would love to post something like that on my page, but technically the rules will not allow me too

 

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ...

Maybe GC.com need to reword the rules.

[+user13371]

...are you just bored with caches in car parks? I feel an ulterior motive in this thread...

No ulterior motive.

 

I do a lot of urban caches, and a bunch of them are in parking lots. I know these are private property, but most business don't care if you walk through their parking lot. Usually no big deal.

 

In THIS case though - I noticed the "no trespass" sign at about the same time I was snagging the cache. Thought about it while the composing the "Found" log, then decided to add the NA based on the sign and the nature of the neighborhood. There are a lot of reasons business owners and police around there would pay attention to someone rummaging around in that parking lot.

 

Even so I wondered if that was the right thing to do, and having this discussion was the point of this thread.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+GeoGeeBee]

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

 

I would love to post something like that on my page, but technically the rules will not allow me too

 

 

What rules? Are there rules that prohibit you from putting "There are 'No Trespassing' signs in the parking lot, but the property owner has given me permission to put a cache there?"

[+sbell111]

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

 

I would love to post something like that on my page, but technically the rules will not allow me too

 

 

What rules? Are there rules that prohibit you from putting "There are 'No Trespassing' signs in the parking lot, but the property owner has given me permission to put a cache there?"

The guidelines as written do appear to forbid such a note in teh cache description.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ...

Maybe GC.com need to reword the rules.

Permission trumps the guidelines. Besides, you aren't telling anyone to "ignore" the no trespassing signs since the property manager has basically said those signs only apply to non-geocachers.

[+Chief301]

I'm having a bit of an issue with the definition of "permission" around here. See, where I live is very rural farmland. A few small communities but mostly thousands and thousands of acres of sugar cane fields. There are a couple of nice spots I have my eye on for a cache, but they're out in the cane fields. The fields are technically private property, I get that.

 

Here's the kicker, though....around here, fields are generally treated as public access...maybe not by law or definition, but certainly by practice. Everybody rides their ATV's on the headlands, or hunts rabbits or quail during hunting season, and I know darn well these people don't obtain permission to be there. And most of the farmers lease their farmland, so as long as you're not damaging the crop they really don't care who's on it. That leaves the landowners, who are generally hard to locate because they're usually some incorporated entity and don't necessarily even live around here. There are no "Posted" or "No Trespassing" signs either.

 

I mean, I could go down to the courthouse and search through the land records and spend a week tracking down the owner for permission to place a cache, or I could just pick up my shotgun and go hunting rabbits in the same spot without saying a thing and nobody would mind. So I guess I'm wondering if this issue has ever come up before?

[+GeoGeeBee]

I'm having a bit of an issue with the definition of "permission" around here. See, where I live is very rural farmland.

<snipped for brevity>

Here's the kicker, though....around here, fields are generally treated as public access...maybe not by law or definition, but certainly by practice. Everybody rides their ATV's on the headlands, or hunts rabbits or quail during hunting season,

<snip>

I mean, I could go down to the courthouse and search through the land records and spend a week tracking down the owner for permission to place a cache, or I could just pick up my shotgun and go hunting rabbits in the same spot without saying a thing and nobody would mind. So I guess I'm wondering if this issue has ever come up before?

 

It has come up before. Some cachers use "the frisbee rule." If you could play frisbee there and no one would complain or question you, then you have "adequate permission" to place a geocache there.

 

Note that the guidelines say you must have "adequate" permission, not "express" permission. Except in certain cases, Groundspeak leaves it up to you to determine what constitutes adequate permission. I would certainly not hesitate to place a cache in a spot where I could hunt rabbits.

[+KI4HLW]

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

 

I would love to post something like that on my page, but technically the rules will not allow me too

 

 

What rules? Are there rules that prohibit you from putting "There are 'No Trespassing' signs in the parking lot, but the property owner has given me permission to put a cache there?"

 

As written it appears that there are, I quoted the written rule in my las post but here it is again:

 

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ...

[+M 5]

I take the same stance on most hides. But the ones that have no trespassing signs really ought to point that out on the cache page. If I see such a sign when caching, I immediately end the search.

 

Me too, quickly followed by posting a "Needs Archived" log.

 

If you are hiding a cache in an area where there are "No Trespassing" signs, either explain your permission on the cache page or be prepared to explain it to the reviewer when someone suggests that your cache should be archived.

 

I would love to post something like that on my page, but technically the rules will not allow me too

 

 

What rules? Are there rules that prohibit you from putting "There are 'No Trespassing' signs in the parking lot, but the property owner has given me permission to put a cache there?"

 

As written it appears that there are, I quoted the written rule in my las post but here it is again:

 

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ...

 

It says MAY, so when the reviewer reads "ignore No Trespassing signs" and then reads or previously read that permission was granted by the person who put up the signs, he will most likely let it go.

[GOF and Bacall]

However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived ...

 

It says MAY be archived, not WILL be archived. Explain the situation, including your permission, to the reviewer.

[+Chief301]

It has come up before. Some cachers use "the frisbee rule." If you could play frisbee there and no one would complain or question you, then you have "adequate permission" to place a geocache there.

 

Note that the guidelines say you must have "adequate" permission, not "express" permission. Except in certain cases, Groundspeak leaves it up to you to determine what constitutes adequate permission. I would certainly not hesitate to place a cache in a spot where I could hunt rabbits.

 

That makes sense. And the locations I have in mind, I'm pretty sure nobody would care, or indeed notice.

 

I was just denied permission to place a cache on the property of an antebellum home. I thought it would be a great spot, picturesque, historic, plenty of nice big oak trees. Turns out the place is now a private home/bed and breakfast. They no longer allow "walk-in" tourists, everything by reservation only, so they politely declined to allow me to place a cache there, which I completely understood once they explained the new arrangements. Not that this is related to the original topic, because this is basically somebody's yard, not out in the fields somewhere. Pity, though, it would have been a great location

[+Dgwphotos]

 

It has come up before. Some cachers use "the Frisbee rule." If you could play Frisbee there and no one would complain or question you, then you have "adequate permission" to place a geocache there.

 

 

The trouble I can see with that rule, is that it's sort of an apples and oranges comparison. Geocaching has a different impact and appearance than Frisbee, or playing catch, as another example. You could also play Frisbee on the property of a public school, but Geocaching is banned there.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Dgwphotos

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

It has come up before. Some cachers use "the frisbee rule." If you could play frisbee there and no one would complain or question you, then you have "adequate permission" to place a geocache there.

 

Note that the guidelines say you must have "adequate" permission, not "express" permission. Except in certain cases, Groundspeak leaves it up to you to determine what constitutes adequate permission. I would certainly not hesitate to place a cache in a spot where I could hunt rabbits.

 

That makes sense. And the locations I have in mind, I'm pretty sure nobody would care, or indeed notice.

 

I was just denied permission to place a cache on the property of an antebellum home. I thought it would be a great spot, picturesque, historic, plenty of nice big oak trees. Turns out the place is now a private home/bed and breakfast. They no longer allow "walk-in" tourists, everything by reservation only, so they politely declined to allow me to place a cache there, which I completely understood once they explained the new arrangements. Not that this is related to the original topic, because this is basically somebody's yard, not out in the fields somewhere. Pity, though, it would have been a great location

 

The flip side of that is to make sure those seeking it know they are allowed in to hunt. I've passed on more than one cache because there was a fence and I wasn't sure if I was allowed to be on both sides of the fence or only one, and if one than which side?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

 

It has come up before. Some cachers use "the Frisbee rule." If you could play Frisbee there and no one would complain or question you, then you have "adequate permission" to place a geocache there.

 

 

The trouble I can see with that rule, is that it's sort of an apples and oranges comparison. Geocaching has a different impact and appearance than Frisbee, or playing catch, as another example. You could also play Frisbee on the property of a public school, but Geocaching is banned there.

The point is that geocaching is no more harmful to the area than playing a perfectly innocuous game like Frisbee.

[Clan Riffster]

You could also play Frisbee on the property of a public school...

Not in Florida. Being on school property without explicit permission is an arrestable offense here.

[+Tsnake]

Call it what you want, either it laziness or ignorance on the cache owners parts. It is the duty as a cache owner to know you can place a cache in a given location. That should make it simple, if you don't have permission, you don't place the cache. It doesn't matter what other COs do in your area. You're responsible for you on decisions as a cache owner

 

In many situations, this will make the placement of a cache difficult or impossible. In my area, we are pretty lucky that the local caching association has done the leg work to get most parks and rec divisions to adopt a caching policy for the land that they are in charge of. So, it is easy to find the right people to contact or the policy provides the adequate permission.

 

There may be many locations that you think would be good cache spots, but take the time to get the permission so that there won't be any problems.

 

As noted above, if there is a No Trespassing sign, I like to see some note on the cache description that references that it is still okay to look for a cache at that spot.

 

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

Off topic: I always thought that was the strangest part of the earthcache guidelines. Since there are no containers involved, and most are placed on public access properties, are the owners having to prove, explicitly, that other people can stand at a given spot of public land? I would think that, since they are on areas that the public is allowed to be, getting explicit permission is a bit redundant. It's not a guideline I feel strongly about, but it did strike me as rather quirky.

[+John in Valley Forge]

You could also play Frisbee on the property of a public school...

Not in Florida. Being on school property without explicit permission is an arrestable offense here.

 

Come now, that is not quite a fair comparison. Sure, the law exists, but isn't it there, similar to a no trespassing sign, so that you can after miscreants immediately? I mean I can imagine using the law against a group of teens passing around a bottle on the field behind the school, but not against a group a kids playing soccer (or Frisbee) on the same field.

 

Maybe reviewers should be required to get names and numbers like you need for an earthcache.

Off topic: I always thought that was the strangest part of the earthcache guidelines. Since there are no containers involved, and most are placed on public access properties, are the owners having to prove, explicitly, that other people can stand at a given spot of public land? I would think that, since they are on areas that the public is allowed to be, getting explicit permission is a bit redundant. It's not a guideline I feel strongly about, but it did strike me as rather quirky.

I've got to agree with you on this one. Many of the Earthcache pages I've looked at are for places that people are probably gonna visit anyway. If your at an Earthcache location, there is no way to distinguish who in the crowd is a cacher and who is a tourist.

Edited January 30, 2011 by John in Valley Forge

[+TerraViators]

I doubt Groundspeak will require explicit permission for parking lot hides unless they are compelled.

Doing so would directly impact their revenue stream.

 

They get paid on a per-hide basis?

No, but if 90% of all caches were archived and future caches without explicit permission were denied, I'll bet you'd see alot of people not renewing a membership or new cachers paying for a membership. So, yes, it would directly impact their revenue opportunities.