MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Skirt Lifters in a Parking Lot
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dmnrec
Geocacher


Joined: 17 Mar 2005

Posts: 541

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't look for caches just to get my stats up (as evidenced by only 163 in 6 years Laughing ). I always look for the experience, and prefer the long walks in the woods, tho' I've done small parks in the city if I get the itch. I don't like going to parking lots or areas where I have to stealth...so if that is the case, I just avoid doing them. I did notice that this cacher is relatively new to the sport, and so I'd give him/her the benefit of the doubt as to the placements. Chances are, they sound like they will be muggled eventually and the cacher will learn the hard way about where not to place them.
_________________
Effective parks and recreation facilities do not just happen on their own. They require professional care and financial support to keep them clean, safe and suitable for the community they serve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King Boreas
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Dec 2002

Posts: 2440

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hunter-Killer wrote:
When we go for one, We do not use discretion as I would other caches. You want to put one in a busy parking lot? fine, We will do it, but if ten people are sitting in their cars in a mall parking lot watching us behind their tinted windows, well that's the cache owners problem, not mine.


Code:
Amen!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
timewellspent
Geocacher


Joined: 19 Mar 2008

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
I have yet to hear of a skirt lifter that was approved by the property owner. Hopefully someone will point *one* out...?


Here's *one* Smile

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9e5497b3-cb92-4d45-8799-2b08228bcd64
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spinowner
Geocacher


Joined: 25 Nov 2004

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I go after them and log a find just like any other cache even though they aren't interesting. The private property issue, on the other hand, is a pet peeve of mine ever since an incident where I was confronted while unwittingly on private property. I always note in my log that the cache is on private property if the cache page doesn't say anything to that effect and ask either in the log or via geomail if the owner has obtained permission.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
knowschad
Geocacher


Joined: 20 Jun 2005

Posts: 470

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I've seen, the argument that most LPC hiders use, (whether right or not), is that the guidelines say that the hider must have *adequate* permission, not *explicit* permission. They then go on to say that, if they have the right to park their car there, and to walk around there, that they have adequate permission to cache there.

The adequate permission argument is used in many other situations as well... I'd venture to guess that it is used in MOST caches where there are not explicit park rules for hiding a cache.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timewellspent
Geocacher


Joined: 19 Mar 2008

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

knowschad wrote:
The adequate permission argument is used in many other situations as well... I'd venture to guess that it is used in MOST caches where there are not explicit park rules for hiding a cache.


Like Bus Shelters, Park and Ride Ramps...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hal-oween
Geocacher


Joined: 10 Mar 2009

Posts: 172

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have noticed that in MN, people with these kinds of hides at least choose a lamp in the farthest corner of the parking lot. I did some caching in an suburban area of Houston, TX and most of the SL caches were front and center right by the door! Confused I drove by a TX cache and didn't even stop because it appeared to be on the neon sign of a restaurant - no permission noted on the cache page.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=078f5575-1cfd-45d3-9873-dd81959be7cc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jam3s
Geocacher


Joined: 26 Oct 2008

Posts: 842

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Melrose Police Dept has decided to make sure that all the cachers have permission for EVERY cache placed. Skirtlifters and all.

I think that 80% of all caches placed do not have permission. When I spoke to the Parks Dept of Saint Cloud had told me that they do not want any caches in their parks. We have a lot of them because the police dept is fine with it, but then who is really in charge? Police say do it, parks say no... I see the police as the governing authority although I do not have any caches in the Saint Cloud parks. Mine are in Stearns County Parks where they love caching. Although, I do have one skirtlifter that someone placed and I am the person that has it under my account because I am closer to check on the cache.
_________________
~~ I was told all I needed was a GPS. I wanted everything else. ~~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5693

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

knowschad wrote:
The adequate permission argument is used in many other situations as well... I'd venture to guess that it is used in MOST caches where there are not explicit park rules for hiding a cache.


I'd agree with this - it's likely used where there aren't explicit rules preventing caches (or general rules that would also apply to caches).

That's fine for public land, or other lands where you won't see security rolling up next to you. In places that are private though, such as malls and such, I don't buy that don't ask/don't tell is adequate permission.
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5693

PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jam3s wrote:
The Melrose Police Dept has decided to make sure that all the cachers have permission for EVERY cache placed. Skirtlifters and all.

I think that 80% of all caches placed do not have permission. When I spoke to the Parks Dept of Saint Cloud had told me that they do not want any caches in their parks. We have a lot of them because the police dept is fine with it, but then who is really in charge? Police say do it, parks say no... I see the police as the governing authority although I do not have any caches in the Saint Cloud parks. Mine are in Stearns County Parks where they love caching. Although, I do have one skirtlifter that someone placed and I am the person that has it under my account because I am closer to check on the cache.


If this is St. Cloud's official policy then it would seem appropriate for the MnGCA board to make introductions.

Of the three different entities you mention, do any have published policies, or is it just word of mouth?
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
spinowner
Geocacher


Joined: 25 Nov 2004

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
knowschad wrote:
The adequate permission argument is used in many other situations as well... I'd venture to guess that it is used in MOST caches where there are not explicit park rules for hiding a cache.


I'd agree with this - it's likely used where there aren't explicit rules preventing caches (or general rules that would also apply to caches).

That's fine for public land, or other lands where you won't see security rolling up next to you. In places that are private though, such as malls and such, I don't buy that don't ask/don't tell is adequate permission.


PH is right on. Using the don't ask / don't tell logic would mean I could hide a cache in the front yard of a random home because nobody ever said I couldn't. Just because a mall is a public place doesn't mean it's public property.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ghost640
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Nov 2006

Posts: 270

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good thread – I missed it because I’m out of town and in the Land of LPC’s, where there are many series like BRUNCH: Brookpark Road Urban No-brain Cache Hides - with the stated goal to “Increase your find count and my hide count”. As a result, most regular cachers here are in the multi-thousands, and it’s just the way the game has evolved here. Really it was probably only a matter of time that these kinds of series found their way to Duluth – but I share Pear Head’s lament -for a fairly long time, it was cool to be in a place where parking lot hides were uncommon.

On the private lands issue – my 70-something aunt Lighthouse Keepers in Cinci, who is the sweetest retired schoolteacher you will ever meet, was accosted by the owner of a local chain, who accused her of trespass and threatened to call the police. I’m glad she stayed in the game after that, but it was a bad experience for her, it was a bad experience for this storeowner faced with suspicious activity in his parking lot, and certainly bad for geocaching.

RonGerth raised an excellent point though, not everyone can go bounding along Skyline Parkway, and there should be 1 and 1.5 available to that segment of the caching population. But really, there are a lot of creative ways to hide a cache in wheelchair-friendly areas that could make the sport a lot more interesting than pulling up to a lamppost in a WalMart. IMHO, it’s a matter of aesthetic and common sense, but it’s an open sport, and within the guidelines, people are free to place these as they wish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4039

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spinowner wrote:
Pear Head wrote:
knowschad wrote:
The adequate permission argument is used in many other situations as well... I'd venture to guess that it is used in MOST caches where there are not explicit park rules for hiding a cache.


I'd agree with this - it's likely used where there aren't explicit rules preventing caches (or general rules that would also apply to caches).

That's fine for public land, or other lands where you won't see security rolling up next to you. In places that are private though, such as malls and such, I don't buy that don't ask/don't tell is adequate permission.


PH is right on. Using the don't ask / don't tell logic would mean I could hide a cache in the front yard of a random home because nobody ever said I couldn't. Just because a mall is a public place doesn't mean it's public property.


I strongly disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spinowner
Geocacher


Joined: 25 Nov 2004

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bflentje wrote:
I strongly disagree.


I strongly agree to strongly disagree. No cache should be hidden on any privately owned property without explicit permission of the property owner. Assuming for any reason that it's OK to do so is not OK.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4039

PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spinowner wrote:
bflentje wrote:
I strongly disagree.


I strongly agree to strongly disagree. No cache should be hidden on any privately owned property without explicit permission of the property owner. Assuming for any reason that it's OK to do so is not OK.


That's the great thing about America. You're allowed to have your opinion without fear of being persecuted Wink But while you'd never find me hiding a LPC, or LPC style cache, I am in the implicit camp. To say implicit permission correlates to the scenario you've proposed of someone's house is just a wild exaggeration, equivalent to fear mongering in politics Wink Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.