shunra

Read all about it here.

There's a couple of them. There's even a multicache ("Haunted Port Townsend") which requires you to stop by a few of them, and some other haunted locations, too. The only hotel i ever stayed in (before moving here) is the Belmont on Water Street, in downtown, opposite of the Palace Hotel. The Palace is on the Haunted list, but the Belmont might as well be too. I loved it. Not as fancy as the Haunted Manresa Castle, though...

I think you misunderstood me, Marcus. The "not care" part was about whether there will be a ban or a bureaucratic hassle, because the only difference betwen those two is whether all of us, or just most of us, will avoid the SPs. It's great that the SPs are asking for input. And don't get me wrong: it's great that the WSGA is giving it. But it should be very clear to everyone that it is just input that the WSGA is giving to the SPs, and not the opposite. it is not some code of behavior that the WSGA is committing US to, or GC.com. And WSGA input should not turn into GC policy. Now, it is up to the SPs to unilaterally decide what their policy is going to be, and we'll all accept those rules, and GC will apply them, as it does with the National Parks. In the meantime, the grey area remains, and there is no need for changing approval guidelines at this point. The way those guidelines were presented here was as if they reflected the new GC.com policy, and the new SP policy. The truth is: they do neither. GC.com is not bound by the WSGA, and certainly not by something which is only input anyway. And as the SP - when they'll formulate a policy, we'll hear about it. And until then, new approval guidelines on the one hand, and the pulling of caches on the other hand, are both premature. So let's stop refering to private WSGA input as to "guidelines", let's wait until we hear what SP policy is going to be, and let's keep doing our best to keep SP rangers positively disposed to us (in that light, see my recent request to keep the impending cache machine out of FWSP).

A pertinent point here is the role of the WSGA. The WSGA is not a subsidiary of GC.com, and there is no reason why its negotiations should be binding to anyone but it's own members. It certainly has no power to negotiate on behalf of GC.com, and decisions made by GC approvers, when acting as GC approvers, should be made on the basis of GC policy, not of WSGA negotiations. Even if those approvers are themselves WSGA members too. If the WSGA thinks that by its agreement with the State Parks it can avoid a ban - that's great. It's gentlemanly agreement binding WSGA members, not GC.com. and so it should be. I believe that GC.com (and its lawyers) should consider very carefully whether it wants to endorse those guidelines and make them GC policy, since if it does, it clearly confirms that it is more than a listing service. If GC assumes responsibility, it also assumes liability. In general, not only in state parks. It's a can of worms. The more I think about this, I think the state parks (individually or collectively) should independantly decide whether they want to allow, ban or restrict cache placements, and if they bother to inform GC.com (or other listing services) about such a ban, as in the case of ther National Parks, GC approvers could respect that. But it's not a matter for negotiation, because anyone who empowers himself negotiated on behalf other people, also assumes responsibility for their actions. It looks as if the question is whether we'll have (1) a ban, (2) a bureaucracy, or (3) a grey area. Any negotiations with the SPs makes nr. 3 less likely. Given the choice between the former two, personally, I couldn't care less, because I'd avoid the SPs as soon as either of them would be in place. I have three GCs in the very cache-friendly Ford Flagler state park, but if there is even the slightest possibility that I will be held accountable for any damage caused by other people, I'll pull them as well. As I assume that very few new GCs will be placed in state parks, and many old ones will be removed, I don't think I'll be caching much in state parks anymore, and I don't see much reason to renew my annual State Park vignette.

You'll have to pay an entrance fee to remove it, too. Why don't you just send the coords to the ranger and ask them to remove it for you. You can archive it on the site when a ranger (or a DNF log) confirms that it is gone.

I'd second the suggestion to avoid the Fort Worden area at all costs. Thanks for removing the sensitive ones and Wilson Admirer. Please also remove the two Dragontrack caches (soil water and Glacier) which are inside the Fort Worden SP. I don't consider those two environmentally sensitive as such, but they're in the "politically sensitive" State Park. Thanks for your understanding!

If you're looking for cheap, there's a few motels. Can't recommend any, they're the same everywhere. For good accommodation, check out ptguide.com.

It should be removed from the route altogether - it's in the State Park. Ask Team Misguided about Fort Worden State Park ranger Steve Shively, about his feelings about geocaching, and about how he has been pushing for a ban on geocaching in WA state parks in general. When I wrote my previous message, I hadn'noticed that you included three caches in Fort Worden State Park (Wilson Admirer, DT Soil Water, and DT Glacier). Please take those out of the CM route as well.

Could you please post a second draft, and remove those environmentally sensitive spots altogether? I don't want to think about what their inclusion in a cache machine would do to the publicity of geocaching. If you include these caches, I, for one, will not be able to stand up for permits for caches in Jefferson County and Port Townsend City parks anymore, and the climate might change entirely. Situated as we are between the National Park and Fort Worden, Fort Flagler, Fort Townsend and Anderson Lake State Parks, county and city parks are watching the developments in that arena closely.

BTW, EraSeek, I don't understand your sig line. The North Sea is everything but calm, and shallow (with a max. depth of 100', it's still to deep to wade across, though )

Ah, that cache... One of my favorites... I bought an inflatable kayak soon thereafter, but a family of baby raccoons punctured it last week, when I was drying it in our yard. I was watching them, but didn't have the heart to bother them. I have contemplated wading to your Skagit Delta #2, but I think I missed the season. I was just asked about Ozymandias by someone last week, who couldn't find it on the site. I gave the link, and hoped he would make it there and place a new container, so it could be unarchived. I haven't heard from him yet. If he went there, I hope he took a boat and did it the safe way...

Good point, Marc, about the option. But it's an option that you, and I, and most people, will decline. Effectively, it is not an option at all. I'd still like to know whether caches the new "state park guidelines" are rules, which, if not followed, will prevent a physical cache from being approved. I'm asking that, particularly in light of the statement that not all WA SPs apply those guidelines. The rules are not "officially" in effect yet. They have been sent to all the park rangers for comment before being made official state wide. Many of the parks have decided to start enforcing this now, some are waiting. The biggest problem was that many of the County and City Park systems were watching to see what the State Parks did. If Washington State Parks had banned caching, which was the probable outcome of not coming up with this policy, they County and City parks would have followed in short order. I've spoken with some people at the Snohomish County park system, and they have no intention of setting up a permit system... they simply do not have the time to do so, However they do want to know about caches BEFORE they are placed. So there we go. This agreement with the WA SPs sets a precedent, and now park authorities in every park may want to know about caches before they are placed. How long will it take before we won't be able to obtain approval for caches in ANY park without an affidavit that we have informed the park authorities?

Good point, Marc, about the option. But it's an option that you, and I, and most people, will decline. Effectively, it is not an option at all. I'd still like to know whether caches the new "state park guidelines" are rules, which, if not followed, will prevent a physical cache from being approved. I'm asking that, particularly in light of the statement that not all WA SPs apply those guidelines.

Ditto. I don't like this new development at all. Does this mean that GC.com will no longer approve caches in WA state parks if no approval from a park ranger was received, and all those clauses are complied with, including the promise to finance restoration costs? If so, this is de facto the end of GC-caches in WA state parks. What about virtuals? They cannot possibly be subject to approval by the rangers. Will virtual caches in State Parks, if submitted, now be approved?

Are you trying to second-guess what TMG might be thinking?

Some of us are too busy overpopulating the world to drive small, economical cars. Yeah, that's another way of keeping the price per mile per person down

Great initiative, SH. Perhaps you should post this to the general and off-topic forums too.

This nicely illustrates the point that owning an SUV can prevent people from getting where they want to go. With my Subaru Legacy, my gas costs per mile today are less than what SUV owners voluntarily paid a year ago.

Ah, I hung out near that cache for over an hour, at the right time. The mere expectation of those airborn hell's angels and the darkness of the hour made for a creepy experience, even without them actually showing up in person.

Just to add my 2 cents - I have subscribed t this blog too, look for it every day. Thank you for sharing. And I like your new avatar, too.

I hope you traded up, or at least even.

Would it be a security problem to log those "caches" on Waymarking.com? Might need to get a new category approved..."Weapons caches". I think I am allowed to mark a cache point and list it. It would be even better if there was a icon for that in geocaching.com. I'm sure service members who are geocachers would list there finds. I will have to do some research on this subject, until then I will log in all of my finds in my journal. Nobody is mentioning WMDs anymore. The ultimate locationless.

I've never wanted to go to one, but I might just end up being there anyway :-)

Thanks. At this really early stage, I'm considering starting and ending in Sequim (a Sequim to Port Angeles to Sequim to Port Townsend to Sequim route) instead of starting at one end and ending in another. The CM's that seem to work best have the start and end close to each other, eliminating a lot of the pre- or post-event driving. Gotcha. In that case, don't start or end in PA, but as close as possible to the bridge, so people will be able to start as close as possible to home, and have less to drive home afterwards. During the CM, they can venture as far west as they wish. Sequim is OK too, of course. I have often been there much late than that. They seem to be quite flexible, and for a big group they will probably be. And yes, they have beer :-) At This event I heared no complaints, and the logs speak for themselves. The place was a great success. Perhaps better for a mellow post-event gathering, though. it's quite big indeed. I think Petals, Pizza Factory and Public House are all suitable for either pre or post event gatherings, and Ajax is good for a post-event gathering. Petals is in Sequim, Ajax is in P.Hadlock (closest to the bridge). Personally I am not too fond of the food at the Public House, but an event there last year wasn't bad. I don't know if the Pizza Factory has beer, but all the others do. HTH, Daniel

I see the coordinates given are for Sequim. If that's where you intend to end your route, then I would recommend Petals (1345 S. Sequim Avenue) as a good place. Really great food, and plenty of space. But I would assume that the route will either be from PT to PA or vice versa, and that you're looking for a good place for dinner at one of the ends. I can't help with the PA end, but as to PT: many geocachers have good memories of an event at the Ajax Cafe near Port Hadlock (21 N. Water Street), just South of Port Townsend. In Port Townsend itself, the Public House (1038 Water St.) might accommodate a largish group of people. So would the Pizza Factory (1102 Water St.). Hope this helps!