Lightning Jeff

I never purported to. I am surprised to hear that anyone ever thought that hiding a cache in a natural nest would be an acceptable thing to do (if, indeed, that happened - of which we've seen no substantiation), and I suggested that if people do think that's acceptable, talking about it is part of the self-policing that we should be selling (and demonstrating) to land managers. I don't think there's anything adversarial about discussing strategy. Nobody is "beating" anybody here - don't you think that's just a touch dramatic?

I disagree. Do not make an assumption all cachers will find it inconceivable to use something as benign as an empty nest without consideration that it might belong to a breed of bird that returns to that nest annually. It happens, it has happened in other locations, and it likely will happen again. Things tend to get carried a good distance because the original was thought to be a great or clever idea. Two great examples to consider are the current name your favorite map challenge, and before that, LSMs. Bird's nests hides are a "clever" idea that came about 3 or 4 years ago. You disagree with what? I assume you mean that you disagree with the notion that everyone "here" (I meant those of us taking part in this discussion, with a concern for preserving our ability to use public lands for caching) would find a cache in a nest inconceivable. Okay, you say it was an "idea" 3 or 4 years ago. I've been caching that long, but wasn't aware of that. But that just reinforces my point: If there are people who think that's a great cache idea, then we really should be talking about that. There was another thread awhile back where a few of us advocated taking a more active approach to reporting inappropriate hides. This kind of thing reinforces that for me. At the end of the day, I still think it would be nice to know what really happened there. How can we address it if we don't know?

I am a weak man, and REI in Redmond had the 400t in stock last night (it looked like they had at least one or two more). I now feel I should update my post. Bugs acknowledged by Garmin are currently screwing up both of the things I mentioned. I tried a generic auto-to-USB cord (yes, in the REI parking lot), and the Colorado goes right into "mass storage" mode (thinking it is connected to a computer). There is a Garmin cord that allegedly works correctly. As for the GPX files, they do work and apparently without limitation (I loaded one up with 4000+ caches), but pulling up the descriptions can be SLOW, and some descriptions or logs with funky characters are apparently causing the unit to crash. Garmin is supposedly working on fixes to both of these things. This unit has a lot of promise, but right now it's more on the frustrating side. Much more discussion in the GPS forum, of course.

So it seems like the issue is with certain characters in cache descriptions or in my case logs. I guess if I really cared about this then I would spend 10 minutes and write a script to strip them out, but I'll probably live with it for now. Write the script! I take it the problem is HTML code within the descriptions and logs?

No we did not. We could have nit-picked every one of their statements about damage purportedly caused by geocachers but that would have put us in an adversarial position. We did not want to be seen as their adversaries we wanted to be viewed as partners with a common goal. If you are suggesting that asking for information or details is adversarial, I totally disagree. This particular incident was cited by them as justification (along with social trails) for the removal of all caches in the park. As someone else here pointed out, knowing about actual damage done by cachers will help us police ourselves. If something like that really occurred, I think we should be talking about it. If, on the other hand, Parks is basing its policy on false assumptions about our activity, I think we should be talking about that, too. I would have thought that would be part of the effort at educating them about our activity. That is, it is inconceivable to everyone here that a geocacher would place a cache or waypoint in a nest. Shouldn't they know that about us?

Did anyone in attendance, out of curiosity, ask about the "geocaching object in an owl's nest" statement that was used to justify the disabling of the Discovery Parks caches?

But don't the maps really "zoom out" in those kinds of places, such that they cover a lot more ground? Seems like it might not be an issue. I kind of agree with Hydnsek on the date cutoff. The argument that "I was already there and shouldn't have to go back" doesn't really convince me. As Abby points out, some of us return again and again to visit new caches. I see it like stages of a multi: The fact that you've already been down a particular trail before doesn't mean you can skip the waypoints of a new cache down that trail. Sometimes, if you want that new find, you gotta go back. I can't say whether I'd chase this one or not. I'm generally ambivalent about the challenge caches because I can't see structuring the next several months/year of rare caching days around a need to visit far-flung arbitrary locations; I tend to choose locations based on a particular cache (or, increasingly, letterbox) that has caught my eye. But if ever a challenge cache was manageable even with a date restriction, it seems like this is the one, since it covers relatively little territory. Still, those Thomas Guides have a lot of pages! It might be fun to try out the "optimal routing" feature on my new Nuvi 760, but I probably don't have the discipline to keep at it. Which brings me to the thought I really wanted to express: Not everyone can do every cache. There are intriguing caches out there that I know I will never be able to do, for various reasons, which might include their far-flung locations, the work involved, heights (Crazy Monkey Tripod, I shall one day ignore you!), etc. That's life. So, I say set it up in the way that will bring you the most enjoyment.

Yup! It's actually "Rescue Green," but I can see how you get to gold from there - it's a pretty strange color.

Yes - and me too, very much. His early caches really inspired me to hide, and I keep visiting the places he introduced me to. Great guy - I hope we see him again someday.

Good news on these fronts, from what I've read in the GPS forum here. The Colorado purportedly has no separate power adapter port, using the USB port instead. Generic auto-to-USB adapters are very cheap online. And it is accepting large GPX files produced from GSAK, including full descriptions, as many logs as the GPX file includes (not limited to what is available in pocket queries), and no known limit on the number of caches other than what memory will allow, which with a 4 GB card is a lot. Pre-order: placed. Patience: being tested.

Yup - and you should have something new (and old) to hunt for here soon...

No doubt about that. Nothing will make the case for a total ban better than disregarding whatever rules are in place. No matter how poorly reasoned or unnecessary (see: State Parks restrictions/requirements), they have authority to adopt and enforce regulations that limit or stop our activity. Thus, energy is best spent educating those park stewards who will listen on the significant benefits and relatively benign impacts of caching. Here's where I may disagree. (I am going to try hard not to offend anyone here, as that truly is not my intent.) Several people sent original, personal messages to the City in response to the disabling of the caches in Discovery Park. I thought those messages were great! While I don't see particular value in 100 of us sending the same form letter, or taking an antagonistic approach, I do think that there may be value in "showing ourselves," and I don't see any harm in 100 people sending their own personal explanations for why caching should be allowed to continue with reasonable restrictions. You never know which explanation might strike a chord with the right person. I think it is no slight to our liaisons (to use your word) to point out that the limited response, funneled through a few representatives, did not work well in the case of the State Parks. Our input was delivered late in the process, the Directive was not altered, and we ended up with a permit form and indemnification requirement that I will tell you, as an attorney, I would never sign. I'm not blaming anyone for that - maybe nothing could have altered the State Parks' course - but I have to wonder if a more robust, maybe even decentralized, response might not be more effective. At any rate, I see no reason for any individual to refrain from sending constructive, positive, personalized feedback to the City. (Griping, threats and the like will not accomplish anything good.) Of course, this discussion may all be moot; as previously noted, the City documents included nothing about plans to further restrict caching in City parks. But then, they also included nothing about what led to the disabling of the Discovery Park caches, so ... who knows?!

It seems this email should have been included in the information provided to Lightning Jeff along with any replies from Groundspeak. I'd be interested to see if that email provides further details or if this is all just anecdotal. I'd wager the email is the same form letter that's in the the PDF that Jeff posted. I don't think so. The form letter was drafted on November 30, in response to the messages they started receiving as a result of this thread. There must be more. I've politely reminded Parks of the obligation to provide all responsive documents.

A PDF of all of the documents the City of Seattle sent me is available here. In the correspondence from cachers, I blacked out personal info - sorry if I missed anything.

Actually, that's something we've had in the works for about a year now! We expect to implement it when we get our new improved WSGA website. Cool! Will we be able to get a pocket query of such caches?!

I sent a Public Records Act request yesterday asking about damage attributed to caches, policies under consideration, etc. - I'll report what I get back. Well, the results, such as they are, are in. I asked for essentially everything in City records pertaining to geocaching, and received a very small packet of documents. The only mildly interesting tidbits, for what they're worth: The Playtime agreement is "non-exclusive." (Those words are even underlined in the agreement for emphasis.) The contract was apparently executed in July 2007, and expires July 1, 2008. At any rate, nothing in that contract requires the City to limit other geocaching activities in Discovery Park. The City was not able to produce any documentation of any kind (including emails, notes - anything) related to the allegation that, "One geocache project even placed an object in the nest of a pair of rare long-eared owls...." Though I asked for all emails pertaining to caching, the City produced nothing from more than 2 years ago, and most of what was produced were messages submitted to the City by readers of this thread. None of the correspondence was negative. I asked for all records relating to suspected damage attributable to caching, in any City park. Other than Laurie Dunlap's November 30 response (which was sent to various cachers in response to their submissions after reading this thread, and makes the "owl" comment), there is nothing at all. No records of any damage to City parks attributable to caching (or letterboxing). Assuming the City fully responded to my request as required*, there is no written policy in the works pertaining to geocaching, either in Discovery Park or City-wide. * Not an insignificant assumption, given how very little I received.

Timely subject. A cacher local to me has gone dormant, and his caches are gradually slipping into disrepair and eventually being archived. Several are absolutely worth saving, and some of the ones that have been archived probably are still there. I have been contemplating doing just what Wander Lost doesn't like to see: taking over the maintenance. I can see the problem WL describes: a cache's life is prolonged when perhaps it shouldn't be. If the cache is uninspiring and the locals have already had a chance to find it, I can see the argument for archiving. On the other hand there certainly are caches that merit prolonged life, regardless of the fact that the owner is MIA. I think that's probably a call that should be made on a case by case basis. If the cache does warrant maintenance and prolonged life, I agree that adoption is ideal. But can a cache (that is still present; I understand that missing caches can't be adopted out) be adopted without the authorization of the owner? (In the case near me, the owner has not logged in for over a year and has not responded to my emails.) As for those that end up archived: I have heard about one of the state caching organizations (MiGO?) having a program where caches that have been archived due to slow/no response to maintenance needs being listed as needing to be removed or confirmed gone - a way of hopefully reducing the geolitter that is sometimes left when a cache is archived by a reviewer and the owner is MIA. Cachers can list their "find" (i.e., that they removed the cache or confirmed it is gone), which is some motivation to get people to go out and perform this task. Any thought given to something like that through WSGA? On the main subject: I agree with others who have said that performing maintenance on someone else's cache is generally okay and welcomed. Personally, I could only see objecting to it if the repair somehow altered the fundamental character of the cache (e.g., changed the hide method, size of container, or the like). (Also, cachers should be very careful about "replacing" a cache that they are "pretty sure" is missing. We have heard stories about replacement boxes being set right on top of the cache. This is why I generally think replacement, as opposed to simple maintenance, should be handled by the owner or at least someone who has previously found the cache.)

Source? Are you saying that one could not load a GPX file from GSAK (in which, for instance, I combine various PQs, use corrected coordinates, etc.)? If so, that's a dealbreaker.

Thanks for that link!

I believe the answer is "none"; the state guidelines were final before we (here) ever saw them. Some of us put real effort into providing what we thought would be useful input, but again, the decisions had already been made. That is the reason for my PRA request. Some might view that as going in with a chip on one's shoulder, but it's not - it's about wanting to know what is happening, the full story, before anything is final. The information is public but we will not get it if nobody asks. In this case, some incident that may or may not be attributable to a geocacher is being waved around as one reason for banning caches. The email from the staffer clearly is not the full story, and we have a right to know the full story, for whatever it's worth. It may or may not alter the outcome, of course, but if bureaucrats are acting on faulty assumptions, then maybe there's a chance to educate them.

I do. Checked AtlasQuest, and see a couple of active letterboxes there, but that doesn't mean too much. Listings are less controlled over there (for better or worse), so even if one caused a problem it wouldn't necessarily show up on the site. (I will say that if there was an "object" in a nest, it was more likely related to a geocache than a letterbox - I would suspect a bison capsule or something similar - not used in letterboxing.) I sent a Public Records Act request yesterday asking about damage attributed to caches, policies under consideration, etc. - I'll report what I get back. Jeff

Can that possibly be true? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I agree with everything Team Misguided said. I think we all need to be more vocal when we see problem caches. Unfortunately, I can't think of any time when I've identified an issue and the cache owner has done anything about it. You can point out that a cache is on private property apparently without permission; that the terrain rating and/or coordinates are wrong and causing people to search where they should not; that the container or some element of the listing is causing people to search where they should not; that the cache is placed in an area where it should not be; that the cache causes people to search in an area or in a way that is likely to attracted negative attention to the activity; etc., and such comments seem largely to be ignored by the people inclined to place such caches. If the answer is a "Should be archived" log, I'm up for that but don't want to be the only one doing it and be labeled a cache cop. I think this (policing and educating ourselves) is the most important thing we can do to protect this activity, especially in the wild places that many of us enjoy most. How do we get the community behind this concept? Edit: Of course right after I hit "Post" I thought of one case where the cache owner made a correction. Don't want to be called a liar! Still, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

My question is what is the difference between this and a temp cache setup during an event? They are both available for a very short time? and the are both "Temporary". I'm not clear on what you're asking. The flash mob events are events like any other - all events are, by definition, of a limited duration, it's simply a matter of degrees. Yes, to the extent "events" are a type of cache, that runs counter to the general notion that temporary caches are not allowed. TPTB have decided to make that exception, just as they have decided to allow the listing of earthcaches even though they are not "caches" by any dictionary definition of the word and even though virtuals are no longer allowed for that same reason. Your analogy of a flash mob event to a temporary cache placed for an event is not apt. I'm not aware of there being temporary caches placed at flash mob events, but even if they are, they are the same as temporary caches at any other event in that they are not listed on geocaching.com, and should not (in my opinion) be logged here except, possibly, with a note. What is it that you're seeing about these flash mob events that is different from any other kind of event in that regard?

Wouldn't the "Notifications" feature work? Set up a new notification (http://www.geocaching.com/notify/), choose the cache type*, set your home coordinates and whatever distance you want, and check "Found It." You'll get an email every time one of the caches in your "home area" is logged. * My only pet peeve about this feature is that you have to set up a separate notification for each cache type; I don't see why that should be necessary.