|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 9, 2009 6:54:27 GMT -9
The Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, updated May 7, 2008, state "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." Common examples of where permission has been obtained include: 1) Chugach State Park (there is a blanket permit...new year, time to renew?) 2) Municipality of Anchorage (verbal carte blanche in reciprocity for CITO Events and teaching clinics and efforts are underway to get a written agreement in place) 3) BLM has a nationwide policy which features certain exclusion areas (research natural areas, areas of environmental concern, the Campbell Creek bear exclusion zone, etc.) 4) Creamer's Field Migratory Bird Refuge 5) Slatrat does a nice job on "The Little Pictures - Anchorage" of letting folks know the business owner has approved placement of the cache by stating on her cache page: "The final cache is at one of my favorite locales...donated by the very generous cache hosts."; 6) WarrenPeace's "Anchorage - Big Wild Life" is a nice example of collaborating with a third-party entity to make something bigger and better. After reading the requirements/guidelines, please share your take on: 1) What constitutes "adequate permission?" 2) In your opinion, do different locations require different levels of "adequate permission?" If so, what are those special situations? 3) What kinds of locations may not need explicit permission?
|
|
|
Post by omgcrew on Jan 9, 2009 7:00:10 GMT -9
It means have fun and go caching. It's just a game.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 9, 2009 10:37:17 GMT -9
LBK, bless you. You have done it to me again. I can't resist picking up the thread, but will immediately put it down. I have to make one comment, and then I promise to not say another word on the subject unless specifically addressed.
IMHO, there is sort of an individualistic, maybe even pioneering spirit to geocaching. We like it because it doesn't require a person to be a 'joiner'. And we like the anonymity of it ... even to include the Harry Potter reference (muggles). It's something that you can just 'do', like hiking or camping. There are rules, and guidelines, but many of them are self imposed, and work because by and large geocachers are exceedingly respectful of others and their property.
Like many endeavors that begin with individuals, I am confident that it will be followed by the fence builders, and the regulators ... who are followed by risk managers, and finally by the attorneys. By that time I will probably be using my GPSr soley for its originally intended purpose, which was to keep my family and I from getting lost going to and from our favorite remote fishing holes (where we can practice 'Catch and Reheat').
In the meantime, we are going to have all the fun we can navigate to while geocaching with common sense.
As before, I mean no disrespect ... rules and permissions are cool when needed ... I just don't want to beat to death by them.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 9, 2009 11:13:40 GMT -9
There are rules, and guidelines, but many of them are self imposed The rules and guidelines I linked to are those of Groundspeak Inc., the owners of geocaching.com which is the listing service for our geocaches. Each cache submittal form has two check off boxes: 1) Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. 2) Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement. I am not aware of anyone imposing rules/guidelines outside (other than individual land managers) of what each cache hider already agrees to abide by when they submit a cache for review. The Groundspeak lackeys who attended the Geofest regaled some of us with several stories of lawyers at the lily pad's gates and how the founders stay away at night working out compromises in order to keep geocaching afloat. Every little deviation from Groundspeak's guidelines and rules nudges the house of cards that much closer to collapse. I do have to chuckle a bit since you didn't respond to the original query of this thread..."what does "adequate permission" mean to you."
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 9, 2009 11:29:44 GMT -9
It means have fun and go caching. It's just a game. This remark reminds me of the Geocachers' Philosophical School of Frisbeetarianism - which holds that geocaches can be placed anywhere it's ok to play frisbee, without any other permission needed. It's a real 'philosophy' - widely discussed in the national forums - one I don't ascribe to either.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 9, 2009 11:33:42 GMT -9
Sounds like fun political philosophy!
|
|
|
Post by omgcrew on Jan 9, 2009 11:39:08 GMT -9
Sign me up. But you won't catch me playing frisbee on the peak of rainbow or McHugh. I wonder if a frisbee would make it into the inlet from up there.... then PETA would be upset since it would disrupt the migration routes of the whales.
I see those "rules" as a CYA policy. But then again I have never liked rules.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 9, 2009 11:57:09 GMT -9
Ok, now I'll bite (only a little bit).
'Adequate' probably means different things in different situations. In the case of State or Federal lands, which are generally regulated to the extreme, the regs are the regs.
In the case of more urban hides, 'adequate', to me has a looser interpretation, which is applied on a case by case common sense basis.
Examples:
1.) Residential areas (yards, etc.) are out. With or without permission. It just feels creepy.
2.) Unless the business will be impacted in any way, I have no problem placing or searching for a cache in an out of the way location.
Example #1 is my own personal definition of adequate. #2 is in effect by observation.
In my opinion, it is silliness verging on the absurd to expect a cacher to get written permission to put a cache in every spruce tree to the side or in back of every business where a cache exists. Assume you tried that, one would have to go to the highest authority in the establishment with the request ... and do it in writing. But what of the managers and workers? If I were a business owner, and some unknown person approached me about wanting to play a 'secret game' on my property ... such that I would have to bring it up in a staff meeting, etc. .... Unless I could see a benefit, I would probably dismiss it out of hand, and be irritated for your having wasted my time.
To assure compliance, cachers should be required to enter the premisis, and ask if permission has, in fact been given before a search is made for the cache. Is that not a little goofy?
There is a way. By giving geocaching some good PR in the business community. By promoting the name, but not the activity, but that's another thread.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 9, 2009 12:22:22 GMT -9
be irritated for your having wasted my time. Any less irritated than seeing strangers lurking in the bushes next to my employees' cars and not knowing what's going on? Yes, goofy the way you described how it could work...when a cache is submitted for review, the cache hider checks the boxes indicating that they "1) Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. 2) Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement." It's my expectation that if a cacher has listed a cache on gc.com, they are complying with the "adequate permission" rule/guideline, and they aren't going to put me in the position of having to explain to a land/business owner why I'm lurking on his/her property. The business owner should already know what's up. Personally, I've never felt compelled to place a cache on business property (with one exception in Fairbanks, but it's got a theme that relates to the business) because there are so many potentially cool places to hide caches in surrounding wilder areas where permission has already been obtained. Others will differ in their assessment of what makes a compelling hide location (yet another thread topic, but I won't go there today). I've seen the geocaching/business relationship work well in Anchorage and other locations. I earlier cited two downtown Anchorage caches as examples. In Tucson, I did a puzzle cache named "A Hole in One" that was golf themed (similar to the wildly unpopular "NorthWes Pushes One Into the Woods") with the final located outside a donut shop. The cache contained gift certificates for free donuts.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Admin on Jan 9, 2009 15:24:06 GMT -9
be irritated for your having wasted my time. Any less irritated than seeing strangers lurking in the bushes next to my employees' cars and not knowing what's going on? Yes, goofy the way you described how it could work...when a cache is submitted for review, the cache hider checks the boxes indicating that they "1) Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. 2) Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement." It's my expectation that if a cacher has listed a cache on gc.com, they are complying with the "adequate permission" rule/guideline, and they aren't going to put me in the position of having to explain to a land/business owner why I'm lurking on his/her property. The business owner should already know what's up. Personally, I've never felt compelled to place a cache on business property (with one exception in Fairbanks, but it's got a theme that relates to the business) because there are so many potentially cool places to hide caches in surrounding wilder areas where permission has already been obtained. Others will differ in their assessment of what makes a compelling hide location (yet another thread topic, but I won't go there today). I have one at a business. I asked for permission and noted in the cache page that it had been placed with owner permission. I would hope if a cache is on private property or on business property (other than possibly a box store parking lot) that there is a note that the owner has approved.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 9, 2009 16:09:54 GMT -9
All I can say is that it may be 'by the book', but it doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. I hear a train ... gotta go.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 9, 2009 16:29:07 GMT -9
Hmmm... perhaps the wildly unpopular "NorthWes Pushes One Into the Woods" would be more popular if it gained the finder a donut certificate (or if NorthWes didn't push the cache hunters into the woods!)
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 9, 2009 16:59:16 GMT -9
OK - I promised to answer the posed questions seriously - with more than a reference to the Frisbeetarianism* philosophy which I mentioned earlier.
Here's my take on what constitutes "adequate permission":
1) What constitutes "adequate permission?"
Adequate permission to me has meant the land manager allows geocaching placements. That ‘allowance’ may be as simple as an ongoing verbal commitment (example – MOA Parks – albeit greatly amplified with extensive follow-on written communication) or as formal as written approval with added requirements (example – BLM Campbell Tract). That ‘allowance’ is generally communicated through either direct personal contact (prior two examples) or through the local geocaching organization (example – Chugach State Park’s formally-issued written permit). I choose to place caches on public property areas, where a land manager exists in a ‘stewardship’ role, rather than dealing with privately owned property.
2) In your opinion, do different locations require different levels of "adequate permission?"
Yes – It’s very situational – there’s always to be some level of permission, but as an example of where a higher level of ‘adequate permission’ was sought out I’ve received site-specific approval from park managers for certain of my placements in Kincaid Park where I know park management is concerned about limiting expansion of social trails. 3) What kinds of locations may not need explicit permission?
I’ll answer this by asking the reverse – where is EXPLICIT permission required? ‘Explicit permission’ is best viewed as a requirement for cache by cache approval on the part of the land manager responsible for stewardship of the placement site. Some state parks outside of Alaska require permits for each individual cache placement (rather than a blanket permit), even to the extent of a ranger designating approval of the very precise hide location.
The best example of explicit permission is what’s required for developing an earthcache. The earthcache is an ‘enhanced’ type of cache placement with extra rules (beyond the ‘guidelines’ for cache placement listed by geocaching.com). The earthcache is administered through geocaching.com by the Geophysical Society of America (GSA), and requires the contact name and contact information for each individual earthcache. In my experience if there’s no contact name there will be no cache – and the GSA has applied that rule with vigor.
Groundspeak (owner of the geocaching.com website listing our cache placements under discussion here) has firm guidelines which include requiring the owner of the cache to sign off that they have received permission to place the cache. This permission is, in part, to help prevent the land owner or land manager from seeking damages from Groundspeak which might result from actions or land impacts associated with the cache hide.
From the point of view of maintaining a good user group relationship with the land manager, seeking permission before the placement is much better than getting forgiveness. Examples abound nationwide where land managers have closed entire areas (as large as statewide bans on caches in state parks) due to a lack of forethought on the part of geocachers in building a positive working relationship with land managers in advance of placing caches. Developing and maintaining those relationships are one of the core reasons for existence of local or statewide geocaching groups/clubs/associations.
*Frisbeetarianism - it's ok to place a geocache anywhere it's ok to play frisbee... Not according to geocaching.com - and no, NorthWes isn't a frisbeetarian.
|
|
|
Post by Valerieseaker on Jan 10, 2009 1:06:28 GMT -9
Hmmm... perhaps the wildly unpopular "NorthWes Pushes One Into the Woods" would be more popular if it gained the finder a donut certificate (or if NorthWes didn't push the cache hunters into the woods!) I was going to say the same thing (about the donut, not NW's golfing abilities.) I'll go fetch it next time I'm down that way, and if it's not more than 5 below. Coffee, breakfast, pizza and now a donut. Geocaching's gonna keep me well fed!
|
|
|
Post by southeastalaska on May 19, 2013 7:46:49 GMT -9
To me the short definition of "adequate permission" is permission period. Private property has been used to hide caches without obtaining permission since caching began but that doesn't make it right. Something as simple as a "LPC" in a store parking lot should require permission. That parking lot is private property. Anybody ever seen "permission granted" on the cache page for one of those.
More recently, landscaping belonging to businesses is being utilized for hiding caches. Not really seeing any mention of permission for those either. Cache owners who have caches hidden in areas such as this wonder why their hides turn up missing. Could it be the property owner has seen cachers tromping through their landscaping and removed the caches themselves.
These are just my personal thoughts on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on May 20, 2013 8:58:33 GMT -9
Except in the case where one of my caches is on the property of an educational facility adjacent to a high school (and I didn't want to hear all the finder logs complaining about the cache being located at a school), I don't see why I have to mention anything on the cache listing about what permission was obtained. Permission stuff is the CO's problem and shouldn't be the concern of the hunters. If the site is such that cachers would be concerned about permission, then it might help to enter something about permission on the listing.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on May 20, 2013 12:41:30 GMT -9
To me the short definition of "adequate permission" is permission period. Is that inclusive of utility boxes belonging to the local power company and placements on privately-owned homestead property? I have recently walked away from a couple of hides on business property without even looking due to the new Spring growth from spruce trees laying on the ground and ornamental bark mulch being trampled and strewn over the curbs and across the sidewalk. Hiders of particularly tough hides need to be mindful of the unintended consequences of the area around a tough hide when subjected to the impact of very agressive cache seekers.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on May 20, 2013 12:53:19 GMT -9
It is Groundspeak's policy that cachers operate under the honor system and that the Reviewer is to assume adequate permission is obtained for each cache placment before the cache listing is submitted for publishing on their listing service.
In cases when permission was not obtained and the Land Owner raises a concern with the local Reviewer or directly with Groundspeak, the cache is archived and subsequent hides by the same cacher may receive more scrutiny before new cache pages are published, depending on the circumstances.
The exception to this approach is when specific areas (such as National Parks) have an outright ban on geocaching or when a Land Manager has issued a geocaching permit with stipulations that must be met. In the latter case, the geocacher must provide evidence that the permit is being complied with before the cache is published.
|
|