Electric Mouse

I am locking this one now per my previous post.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS Thanks for the great year and I wish everyone a great upcoming year!

Whew! OK one more post! As a response to this thread in general, I am fine with it so far, but I worry that if it turns into a gossip type thing that simply theorizes about a person who is unable to come here and respond, that it becomes inappropriate. Although banned, the person deserves the same respect as others, and the forum guidelines require a level of respect. I am not suggesting that it has been bad so far, but to avoid issues, I suggest sticking to discussion of the caches, or generally what could cause a ban, who would be notified etc, and not instances or theories of why this particular person was banned.

If the reasons are of no consequence for other cachers I can buy into this. Where other cachers may come to harm, duress, or otherwise actually learn what not to do to keep from being banned (were the line is, is important so you know when not to cross it) then I do not at all agree. The catch 22 is that we as cachers can't know and are stuck trusting those who make the decision, who of course isn't really known either. I was refering in general to the fact that for privacy reasons, Groundspeak would not be likely to respond publically with reasons why a person was banned. I would assume that if another person was unknowingly placed in harm that they would be privately notified. I am not privy to that information though. For what not to do to avoid being banned, the terms of use have a list of prohibited items. If a person is unsure whether their behavior could cause a ban, an email to the contact address could be the best way to address it. Generally though it is common sense. Don't harrass or threaten people, don't scrape the site for data etc. For what it is worth, of bans that I know any details on, I have never seen one done without serious consideration of the situation.

To address your questions: Many of the caches are currently, and fairly recently, disabled. At some point they will likely be disabled long enough to be viewed as stale and could be archived. An archived cache does not hold a location, so yes, another one could be put there if the old one was archived. A disabled cache holds the location though within .1 mile (528 feet). With adoption, I think the caches might be listed on another site, so I think adoptions would not be appropriate. If someone wishes to place a cache in one of the areas the best thing would be to get .1 mile from the disabled cache, or write to Iowa Admin first about the possibilty of archiving the disabled listing. But since I think these are likely listed elsewhere, getting a bit away from the other cache makes the most sense. Getting .1 mile away is often pretty easy. Being banned is normally permanent, although I suppose Groundspeak might listen to a sincere plea to be re-activated. I can't speak for them there though. A person might also try to join under a new name. That is frowned on though and would likely get caught. What would happen then would be a Groundspeak decision made under the circumstances. Again, I can't speak for them on that one and I imagine it could vary in individual cases.

Hi! As BlueDeuce noted, this might get more answers for you in the getting started forum or the GPS Units and Software forum. It could kind of fit in either, but the most would see it in getting started. At the same time, you mentioned your locality etc. and maybe particularly want to hear from locals, which means keeping it here could be good. I'll leave it here for now, but if you would like me to move it, just post or email and let me know and I will move the thread for you. Don't go posting duplicates or anything, that is a no no, but if you want to both get advice and meet locals I could move this thread and you could start another/different one for meeting locals here. Some various option for you there. Oh! And getting used to a GPS takes some time. Plus some caches are just plain hard to find or could be missing. Keep at it! This is a fun hobby. Welcome to the fun!

Hi! I am not clear what this is about, but a check shows an archived cache that was apparently not wished to be there by a property owner or manager. I also see a statement from the thread originator that it is deleted because the cache has been pulled. Since it looks like the issue is over and the thread originator wanted it to end, I am closing it. Thanks!

The reasons for banning a person are really between them and Groundspeak. Generally a ban would happen because of serious terms of service violtaitons. I do not know why this person was banned and for privacy reasons I doubt Groundspeak would comment on it. I suppose you could try to contact the person if you want to discuss it with them or have concerns about the caches.

I don't think that that's what anybody is say or telling you to do...do you have to be acknowledged as being right in order to participate in these forums? A lot of the time, people in these forums will agree to disagree on points of geocaching etiquette, guidelines, gear, etc.; the important thing is to be able to do so in a civil and respectful manner. NFA is right. The forums involve discussion and sometimes people disagree. Sometimes the discussion finds that most hold the same opinion. Sometimes there are equally split and polar opposite opinoins. Sometimes there are a wide variety of opinions. As long as the discussion is civil and respectful, the discussion carries on. There are so many things in caching to debate and the debate is rarely personal. It is just that: a debate. It can be easy to read words and find offense, especially if the writer disagrees, when in many/most cases the writer meant no offense what-so-ever. That seems to be the nature of internet forums at times. Of course if things get obviously personal or mean then a moderator steps in. Fortunately that seems to be rarely needed in the great plains forum, which I thank you all for immensely!

Yes, there are all sorts of innovative caches out there, and the reviewers may or may not have personally seen them. I doubt any cacher can claim to have seen them all. But the reviewers do have a large amount of finds and experience. The reviewers also have the benefit of private forums to discuss caches and if they are OK under the guidelines. Often a new idea that might push the guidelines is discussed. Sometimes it is decided it is OK to list it. Sometimes the discussion decides against that. The reviewers are pretty conscious about those things and seek further opinions. We really would rather list caches than deny them! But we also aim to follow the listing guidelines and we are required to follow them. With the electrical boxes, I would not list a cache that was disguised as electrical equipment and attached to or very near actual live electrical equipment/wires. Although the risk (whether real or very slight) of seeking a cache is placed on the finder, concerns arise over the legalities of such a placement. Depending on the circumstances, there could also be concerns about suspicious activity that could be viewed as terrorism, and such a cache could arguably be covered in the guidelines against defacing public property. We can't list those things under the guidelines. But a fake elecrical box stuck in an area where there are obviously no live wires etc, would be OK with me. I have found one of those before and was rather amused by it. Since there was no risk and it was not defacing public property, there was no issue. It also still fit with the area, so it made for a tough find. With archiving other caches that are brought to our attention, we have to do that. If a cache is found not to meet the guidelines, it is archived unless it falls under a guideline that changed and it is grandfathered. Moving caches are an example of that. Caches that are illegally placed or deface public property are not grandfathered. With this, I will clarify a couple of things. First, the nature of the cache may or may not have been apparent on the review page when it was listed. Not too many people are going to state on the page that the cache is a fake electrical box placed on electrical equipment. We usually learn about those through complaints from other cachers. Next, the guidelines provide that other cache listings are not precedent for future listings. In part because of the first reason I gave. Anyway, I hope ths helps provide some background/information. I guess I had something to say on the electical box issue after all!

I think the August 04 one was the last time that was calculated, so I don't think you missed a more current one. I would imagine that it has increased some or is close to the same now. OK sorry for getting OT. Back to electrical boxes..... Well, not for me, I have nothing to say about them (yet).

The reviewers all have an impresive amount of experience, finds and/or hides. You may be confused because some reviewer accounts will show 0/0 stats. This is because many reviewers use a separate account for reviewing. Thus, my account shows 0 finds, but my player account has between 900 and 1000. For an appeal process, politely writing to the reviewer is the first step. He or she will normally post the issue for comments and votes in the reviewer forums. Sometimes things will change. I know of several cases where once something was posted for comments it was decided to list it. If the decision not to list the cache remains the same, you can also write to appeals at Groundspeak dot com. The guidelines discuss this.

Stay tuned. It's coming next week. It is about 10 minutes before next week!

Just a pre-emptive moderator strike here. You all are playing nice so far, so no worries yet. Please keep the discussion civil. E.g. about the topic of electrical boxes/caches that can look like live wires etc. Avoid the "stupid" comments etc.... Those seemed OK/civil so far in context, but raised an eyebrow for me. Hence the preemptive comment. As I said, you all are playing nice, but I thought I should throw in that preemptive warning just in case things get heated. Heated but civil=OK, heated with name callling=not OK. And I thank you in advance for the former! Carry on.....

It is still not working for me, but if you got in, there must be progress and some might get it to work. I also note that I just now got a different message than before (once), so I figure they are working on it pretty hard since things seem to be changing a bit. I have some caches to log and a few things to look up for others, but the world won't end if they have to be done tomorrow. Things happen. Computer issues are a fact of life and I am confident it will get woked out.

Here is an earlier statement about the issue. At least I assume it is more of the same problem that they are looking at. I (and I bet some other reviewers) also sent a message to a person at Groundspeak to alert them just in case they had left the office for the evening. Hopefully it will be back up soon.

I received this today from the assistanst chief of the ND Wildlife Division: This could be a good time for people in ND to consider talking to them about changing their policy if anyone feels inclined to do so.

I sent an email. If I don't hear anything in the next week or so, I will try to call, or if you would like to try a call feel free!

Very nice design. Thanks for your work on this!

Thanks for the info! I will try to contact the person next week and see if they can tell me what exactly the Fish and Game policy is.

If you could find it please email it to me. Since I am told that they are removing caches placed without permission I would like to ask them what exactly their policy is. Right now, since they have not told me of such a policy, I am listing ones that show up, but I would hate to annoy them and would like to figure out who cachers should contact for permission if it is required. They don't seem totally anti-caching, so I think it is a matter of figuring out what exactly their policy is and encouraging a caching friendly policy.

In another thread I noted that North Dakota does not have a geocaching organization and expressed that it would be nice to see one form because that state is starting to have park issues/policies arise. I was then asked: So as not to derail that thread, I am starting this one and answering the question. The North Dakota Park and Recreation Department requires registration of caches. They are quite caching friendly. Here is their website. There is also general information on my Reviewer web site. I am told that the ND Fish and Game Department does not allow caches and removes them. I have not been formally informed of this and an email I sent inquiring about it to their department was not anwered. A representative of the Parks Department (who is also a cacher) expressed the hope that with some education, the Fish and Game people might change their stance. Apparently Fish and Game do own a cache that they placed themselves. I also am told that the ND Historical Society is considering sponsoring their own caches and then not allowing others on their properties. I have not tried to contact them at this time. I feel it is better for locals to work on such things, although I will write if asked by a group. It might be worth it for some ND people to get together and consider approaching them and seeing if a middle ground could be reached where perhaps they will allow other caches with or without a permit. Trying to reach the Fish and Game people would be good too. So there is my information. If cachers in ND decide to approach these agencies, please let me know if I can be of assistance. I can write to a contact person if you ask, and you are more than welcome to give them my email address if they wish to contact me with questions. My email is electricmouse "at" geocachingadmin.com (replace the "at" with the @ symbol, I typed it that way to avoid spam bots). Also please update me of any policies that you become aware of. Thanks!

Somehow I missed your question on this! Sorry about that! So as not to derail this topic into a discussion of park polices, I will re-post your question in a new thread and provide an answer there.

Hi! The forum guidelines prohibit posting the same item to multiple threads. From the guidelines: Since this has been posted across the regional boards, I am going to lock it. I'll leave the post though, so the info is here for anyone who wants to check it out. There is also a thread for people to post blog links. I suggest that you post there and then lock your multple threads (if other moderators haven't). That thread is here. Thanks!

Hi! The forum guidelines prohibit multiple posting across forums. Since this is a duplicate thread I am closing it. For those interested though, this thread has ordering information and is open for posts. Thanks!