Landowner Permission

[Brentorboxer]

I see we have a few new caches just approved for the area I live last night, on each cache it tells us who has given landowner permission, is it possible to have this on ALL caches, so we can see who has given permission whether it is inside or outside a protected area?

[Happy Humphrey]

Why? I agree that in an ideal world, it's reassuring to know that permission was sought.

And it may work in some cases, but there are lots of scenarios different from the likes of http://coord.info/GC2CX7F.


Sometimes specific permission is unnecessary, and I don't think I'd welcome entering into an argument with some stranger about why I haven't given permission details on my micro-on-a-footpath listing. In many locations, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be interested that a handful of extra people are going to take that footpath. So there's a film container under a stile. So what?
In some cases, it might be rude to publish anything that identifies the person giving permission, and could lead to awkwardness (you'd have to inform the landowner that you're going to mention him "on the internet" and he might suddenly decide that permission is no longer forthcoming!). Some major landowners don't even like to reveal publicly what land they own. At the very least, it could lead to a glut of cache permission requests once the precedent has seen to be set. The landowner may then regret having been such a pushover.
Permission might have been granted when you set the cache in 2004, but now no-one in the management team has a clue about the cache and there's no guarantee that waving the cache description in the face of the ranger is going to cut any ice if he's querying your right to search.
Permission was granted by the ranger, but his boss would be livid if he found out as the ranger doesn't actually have the authority.
etc
In short, it's a can of worms.

[Brentorboxer]

I know exactly what you mean it would certainly open up a “can of worms”. I always understood footpaths across fields were for walking on not for people to hide caches in farmer’s hedges or under stiles, unless the farmer/landowner has given permission.

[Happy Humphrey]

...I always understood footpaths across fields were for walking on not for people to hide caches in farmer’s hedges or under stiles, unless the farmer/landowner has given permission.
Strictly speaking, you're correct. But then, footpaths aren't meant for people to picnic on, or run up and down for sports training, or take photos, or look through binoculars on either. Would you advocate asking permission for such activities, and then post notices at each end of the path? I'm not even sure that a landowner could actually stop you geocaching (permission or not) unless he can quote a bylaw that prevents it.

A reasonable landowner would understand that a few people walking along and occasionally stopping to sign a log book (or have a cup of tea) are doing no harm, and the impact is too trivial to require admin. Even if people step on to the verge of the path, or rummage in the hawthorn a bit. The problem tends to be in explaining that, effectively, that's all there is to the average countryside geocache. The actual container is normally invisible, and is easily removed so is not relevant (assuming it's sensibly-placed); it's all about access for cache seekers.

But perhaps you have a particular point to make?

[Bear and Ragged]

... A cacher trips and hurts themselves.
Decides to sue the cache owner, and the landowner -whose land they were on- because the name is on the cache page, and well, it was their land...

[Brentorboxer]

Strictly speaking, you're correct. But then, footpaths aren't meant for people to picnic on, or run up and down for sports training, or take photos, or look through binoculars on either. Would you advocate asking permission for such activities, and then post notices at each end of the path? I'm not even sure that a landowner could actually stop you geocaching (permission or not) unless he can quote a bylaw that prevents it.

A reasonable landowner would understand that a few people walking along and occasionally stopping to sign a log book (or have a cup of tea) are doing no harm, and the impact is too trivial to require admin. Even if people step on to the verge of the path, or rummage in the hawthorn a bit. The problem tends to be in explaining that, effectively, that's all there is to the average countryside geocache. The actual container is normally invisible, and is easily removed so is not relevant (assuming it's sensibly-placed); it's all about access for cache seekers.

But perhaps you have a particular point to make?
Maybe I’m wrong but it looks like (and this has been pointed out by other caches in my area) that this business of permission seems to be only required with large organisations such as the Duchy of Cornwall, National Trust, Dartmoor National Park, etc. But when it comes to the small farmer it seems to be anything goes.

[Brentorboxer]

... A cacher trips and hurts themselves.
Decides to sue the cache owner, and the landowner -whose land they were on- because the name is on the cache page, and well, it was their land...
Farmers should have public liability insurance, he would be stupid not to with footpaths on his farm, but I doubt if the cache owner has.

[Happy Humphrey]

Maybe I’m wrong but it looks like (and this has been pointed out by other caches in my area) that this business of permission seems to be only required with large organisations such as the Duchy of Cornwall, National Trust, Dartmoor National Park, etc. But when it comes to the small farmer it seems to be anything goes.
There's a particular agreement with the NT, which is why permission details will be shown. I believe that the requirements are not very onerous as the NT has a kindly view of geocaching. For the other major bodies, I think that specific permission will be required if the site is an SSSI, and that would also be the case if the farmer's land was also in an SSSI.

Otherwise, as far as a Groundspeak review is concerned, you declare that you have "adequate permission". You could interpret that to be "anything goes", if you like. I prefer to see it as a sensible way of allowing the cache placer to decide what level of permission is necessary depending on local circumstances. And taking responsibility for any flak should he have misjudged the situation. But to keep it in perspective, that normally consists of complying with a request to remove the cache - hardly a crisis.

Most farmers near my home are quite tall, anyway. ;) So I wouldn't know for sure.

[musketeer]

I think its one of the issues which can pose a problem to caching, because at the end of the day its their land you know? Even though it isnt something harmful they still should know what is going on, on their turf y'know? I dont see the majority of Landowners having a problem with it, even though I havent placed a cache on private property.

[smudger105e]

Even though it isnt something harmful they still should know what is going on, on their turf y'know? I dont see the majority of Landowners having a problem with it, even though I havent placed a cache on private property.

Permission? perhaps. Their name published on the 'net? I think not.