Konnarock Kid & Marge

Has there been any change in the Parks position on ECs

We have been through this several times before, but I am one of many who think NPS permission for an earthcache is silly! After all, it's our land. I believe the original mistake was made by us and not the NPS.

Only God can retire an earthcache ...............i.e collapse a cave!

Is this still true? I have a few TnT coins and cannot find the coin codes on your site. Thanks.

Nothing in life is free! The amount of how less than free and earthcache should be is a matter of personal preference and economics.

I'm not in favor of "Balkanizing" the sport into increasingly smaller categories. When it comes to Geocaching, I'm a proponent of KISS Besides, there's nothing stopping people from putting interesting content in Descriptions that is related to other fields of science is there? Touchstone, I agree with your KISS principal. The only thing I have trouble with is your assumption of "Besides, there's nothing stopping people from putting interesting content in Descriptions that is related to other fields of science". I wish it were true, but it isn't. I have had to remove content that was not related to geology, but to other fields of earth science. It has gone so far as needing to remove such content when I appealed an initial 'unapproved'. The EC was finally approved, but not until I removed a lot of the 'write-up' which related to other aspects of earth science. I certainly appreciate what the GSA has done for earthcaching. Heck, they started it and I have no problem with their influence. Past problems with the powers that be have nothing to do with the geological slant to ECs. A simple and narrow geological definition of earthcaches is fine. For those who want a broader definition, which would include other branches of earth science, allowing such content would answer that question, but it ain't happening. Thanks.

geodarts, thanks for the reminder. I had forgotten about it.

If it were one of our ECs. I certainly would allow the log. It's a game!!!!!!!

Please..................Sandy and Neos2 clarified the problem as in resolving the issue. You only were the first to regurgitate the solution, not arrive at it! Enough is enough! Please give it up. Time to end the discussion. Thank you.

Actually, I provided the same text before the two and you just would have needed to read my posting. So you are a moderator or a member of GSA? I don't think so!

Many thanks to Sandy and Neos2 for clarifying this.

Very well said TerryDad2. I just checked the referenced guidelines and cannot find any reference to the original discussion point (ECs inside museums). Was it removed? Is that the result of the discussions between GS and GSA? What, if anything has happened? Maybe I missed something, but is that how the problem will be addressed by simply removing previous guideline language without explanation? Thanks. P.S. By the way, Neos2's post is number 18.

Good points. Never happen though! Thanks.

How about GeoCache? Oops, that's already taken. I'm with you regarding the limitation, but it will never be changed.

I was thinking of having an Earthcache day event this year. Is it possible to get some support from GSA i.e goodies to give away or display? Thanks.

If it costs too much, you can always try sneaking in! Further speculation on this is becoming redundant and not relevant. As Sandy says: "Please keep an eye on the FAQs on EarthCache.org" I'll wait 'til then!

I don't think there is one or at least one that has been celebrated on a regular basis!

Eighty bucks for an earthcache? That ought to be a down payment to buy the thing!

I seem to recall (but could be mistaken) the reason the restriction in museums was to discourage EarthCaches that ONLY ask people to go into a museum and see some small scrap of geology totally out of context. There are so many very cool "things" in museums and nature centers to see, but EarthCaching is more focused on exploring the geologic features of the Earth outdoors, up close and personal. I read the EarthCache in question to also have outdoor components, and the trip inside was more of a very cool logging task, not the main purpose of the visit. I could be mistaken about that as well. Very well said. Earthcaches were intended to get people off their duffs to enjoy and learn something about geology in the outdoors, although I may be wrong about the part of getting people off their duffs! Fees may be a minor impediment. From park admission to parking fees, sometimes the fees cannot be avoided.

But shouldn't they read the cache description before starting for an EC? Personally, I would be much more disappointed if an EC just required me to visit the entrance of an museum and to write down some facts that have no educational value. So the choice is between having an EC that requires to visit the museum or having no EC there at all. Any solution inbetween is extremely lame. Cezanne That's not the point. The question is, should the EC should exist in the first place per the guidelines. Somewhere in the deep, deep crypt of previous threads, this was discussed. Paying admission is one thing and limited hours is another. The only problem when addressing admission charges, there are tons of ECs in parks where admission is required and often those same parks have limited hours? Only difference may be costs. Park admission fees are usually much cheaper than museums, but not always. We are glad to see that the problem is being reviewed. Good luck!

You are right about the rule, but it is obviously ignored. I know of several ECs just like the one you are referencing. One is practically in our back yard! Your example is exactly why a lot of us got discouraged with developing earthcaches. Between getting permission from public parks and inconsistent rule application, I gave up!

Have you ever heard of sampling? With this season of political polls do you think all "100%" of the population is queried? No, it is sampled. Like you, I don't know if 15% of geocachers are using the forum, but let's assume it's half of that number. Polls representing millions of people don't come close the 7.5% of the population. Admittedly, the sample is carefully chosen based on certain statistical parameters, but we don't know the actual 'make-up' of our forum sample. If it should remain (the PMO designation), I suggest you take an informal count of ECers who have more than one or two ECs. If it were so desirable, then why isn't it used other than by few individuals who are not major EC developers? Maybe they realize a potential negative impact? This argument wouldn't be worth having if it wasn't for those few misguided individuals who use the PMO. I contend they give earthcaching a bad name. Most cachers I know are premium members and think any PMO designation on an EC is just plain rude. Who are we to set qualifications for visiting an EC? We are the mortals who developed the EC. We didn't create the EC! Thanks for a very civil, but frank discussion. I now realize I am not going to change anyone's mind or at least those who make the rules. Having said all I want to say on this topic, I don't want to forget the season so I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!

I agree that most of us EC'ers would like to see PMO off limits to EC's, but that won't happen. If more of us wanted the PMO EC's more would exist. The subject of PMO EC's in our State and National Parks is an issue that should be continued with land managers, not Groundspeak. I can't see a land manager only allowing paying members of this site able to view a POI on public display. In fact I have discussed this with a few, and we agree. Good point MPH. Since GSA has this special relationship with the National Park Service why don't they ask them (NPS) what they prefer? I seriously believe that the NPS would bot approve an EC on the basis of limiting visits due to a PMO designation. These are 'public' parks not private use parks.

I am not specifically disagreeing with you, more so just curious. How do you know that a vast majority of ECers would like to see PMO made off limits for EC's? Is this based on the vocal few in this and the previous threads or is this based on some other way of determining? I think the dynamic of these forums is skewed in that if something appears to be a majority in the forums it doesn't necessarily represent the community as a whole. I would even dare say that the forum posters typically are exceptions to the general community. For the record, I am not against PMO EC's. I would not make any EC of mine PMO but if others want to for w/e reason, it wont bother me. Thanks for your response. Now to address your two points (highlighted). The only way I could know is from the forum. Maybe I should qualify my comment with the vast majority of ECers who post on this forum would like to see the PMO designation made off limits, but I have no way of knowing who/what they represent other than themselves. To answer your second point, on what basis would you say "that forum posters typically are exceptions...."? At least I have some data (results of the forum posts). I am not basing my conclusion on assumptions. Thanks. Just curious, why wouldn't you make any EC of yours PMO? Using that word again, I would "assume" you don't like the use of it! Thanks.

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership. What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease? P.S. "cache theft and vandalism". What cache theft and vandalism? Ever try to steal a mountain or bottle a waterfall? edit for spelling error.