The UK Reviewers try to at all times, keep this hobby fun [despite what some might claim], and at the same time act in the best interest of our hobby. At the end of the day we are just Geocachers like everyone else.
RoW's are not Public property, the Land they traverse remains the property of that Landowner. And there is not any Legal Right to Place a Geocache on one. But as my colleague stated, we work on a Adequate Permission is Presumed unless we have reason to request Permission Details.
At the end of the day, in the vast majority of cases, we leave it up to the individual Cacher Owner to decide what Adequate Permission is. However one point to remember
"is that it only takes one cache placed without Permission to affect many others!"
As for
PS: I would like to know if the request in my previous post to revisit the SideTrack policy is possible? From one of the replies, its a decision imposed by the reviewers, not by NR (maybe I am wrong?). It seems really harsh for one incident to virtually block access to hundreds of caches in quiet railway stations.
We work on a Proof of Permission to Publish, that is not Blocking anyone from placing a Cache on Network Rail Property. It is simply a requirement for the Cache Owner to provide Proof of Permission. In other words, we do not work on a Presumed basis for Network Rail owned Property. If you obtain Permission off the Station Manager/Regional or National Office. And provide proof of that Permission (ie: contact details and Position within Network Rail) we will happily publish the cache.
As the Landowner, Network Rail have made their position clear. And as such the Reviewers are required to work to that position, as it is their property and not ours. So No we will not be dropping the requirement for Proof of Permission to Publish, which is not a Ban on such locations.
At the end of the day, we are the ones who have to deal with the complaint made by a Landowner. About a cache(s) placed without their Permission. We are also the ones who have to deal with irate cache owners, whose cache has been Archived at the request of the Landowner, despite them obtaining permission for that cache(s). Because one person placed a cache without Permission, and which has caused a issue that has alienated the Landowner to Geocaching.
At the end of the day, we are lucky. In that we get very few Landowner complaints, compared to the number of geocaches being published here in the UK. So I'd say the UK Reviewers have got the balance over Requiring Proof of Permission, where there is not, or it is impossible to gain a Landowner Placement Agreement (Network Rail falls in the first, Church property-Cemeteries in the second part) correct. We don't impose a Proof of Permission Requirement, on a whim, but in reaction to a series of events.
To make it very clear, Proof of Permission to Publish is not and has not ever been a Ban. That is something that Landowners put into place, not Reviewers.
Why not contact Network Rail, at a National Level. And see if you can negotiate a Placement Agreement with them, in regards to placing geocaches on their " quiet railway stations"?
Personally I and I know my colleagues, have no wish to get into a argument with a cache owner. Over what is and isn't a quiet Railway Station. Because any attempt to say no to a cache which we considered to be on a more active Railway Station, where the cache owner considers it to be a Quiet Railway Station. Would just lead to angst and arguments, between the Reviewer and cache owner. Subjective decisions were tried with Virtual caches, when they were still listed. And that failed miserably. So we retain the Proof of Permission for all Network Rail Properties. And even then, as experience has personally showed you, judgement calls about where the Boundary of Network Rail owned property is, causes angst.
Deci
My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!
Dave
Brenin Tegeingl
Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC
Thanks: 
Reply With Quote
)..... the guidelines on GC.com say, By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. We presume therefore you have permission and don't ask for details unless it is in a location where we know a specific agreement is in place. An example of this is the National Trust. They are happy to support caching but they ask that you get permission from them first. So, if a cache is submitted on NT land we will ask you to provide proof that you do have permission from them and if not will provide you with the links to the GAGB landowner database to help you find out to go about this (and links to useful mapping resources too). There are also landowners/managers who have asked that no caches be placed on their land so in these cases we would refuse to publish the cache and ask that it be moved. These agreements are also in the GAGB landowner database.
Originally Posted by Mr Blorenge
......