Konnarock Kid & Marge

Unfortunately your situation is not much different from others dealing with the NPS. Where is that so called endorsement between the NPS and GSA? Somebody (like one of the PTB) ought to make contact with the highest levels of the NPS and remind them of their endorsement or renew it or something! It, the old endorsement, obviously isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you (GSA, GS, etc.) still insist on permission to have people use our public National Parks (find earthcaches) why not grease the skids a little bit? I don't know if I can still find it or not, but that old letter between the NPS and GSA hasn't helped one bit! Sorry, even though we are recognized volunteers with the NPS and have received awards from them, it hasn't helped with EC approvals. For now, it just isn't worth it. Often, we must deal with the Feds and cannot avoid it, but with regard to earthcaching and the NPS, it's like watching mud turn to shale! So to shale with it! (Sorry, if you get it, the devil made me do it!)

Thanks for all the posts. I guess we are in good company since we also try to respond to each EC log. We have been out of town for a few days over the weekend and have gotten behind with several logs. By tonight, we hope top be caught up!

Maybe.. "Proud holders of the Garnet EarthCache Discovery Award" I like that idea and yes, I will use the word proud. I guess it's just my ego but I (we) are proud of a lot of things. I will not list everything (too long of a list) or just individual achievements, but I (we) are proud of our kids, proud of all of our grand kids, proud of our Country and especially proud of our son Capt. Robert (Happy 4th Robert!) Oops, I almost forgot we are proud Platinum Earthcache Masters and "proud holders of the Garnet EarthCache Discovery Award"! P.S. "If you have nothing to be proud about, you have nothing!" ---------Author Unknown

We just received our "Garnet" award. Thanks Geoaware and team! P.S. With the Earthcache master Program we refer to ourselves as Proud Platinum Earthcache Masters. With the new program, when posting the icon should we refer to the us as "Proud Garnet Earthcache Discoverers"? Please, I'm being totally serious. Thanks.

Good grief, here comes the muddy water!

Good grief! I give up.

I hope we will be free to choose earth science as well as a topic for a virtual cache. That by the way would allow me to implement my earth science related cache ideas. Not necessarily from my point of view. I know quite some traditionals and multi caches that lead to locations with geological phenomena and are educative and where one can learn more than by visiting an EC leading to a fountain in a city. Cezanne If you will excuse me, all I was giving was my answer to his either/or question! "Which would you rather visit." This question does not present a right or wrong and the answer is only "point of view"! No one said that some traditional and/or multi caches do not lead to "geological phenomena, etc". The question was which would rather visit. Again, it was either earthcaches or other types not a comparison of a few of each type. Of course, you are entitled to your point of view, just make sure we are comparing apples to apples! Thank you.

Not difficult to get approved? Try it sometime! To answer your question, "Which would you rather visit?" No doubt about it...............earthcaches! Waymarks can be anything from a McDonalds to a monument. I would favor the monument. When virtuals come back and I hope they do, I also hope they do not interfere with ECs. I would not argue that many Waymarks can take you to places that are interesting, but if geological phenomena is your bag, earthcches win hands down!

Good for you! You don't know how pleased we are to see so many ECers sending notes although we haven't heard from a lot of cachers. Thanks. Speaking of which, did I write to tell you those were some great photos you posted for the Beachfront Indiana Fossil Zone (GCPTAD)? I love the photos that come from that EC--especially when people can make it up to the top of the hill to see the view from Geologyjim13's The Oolotic Limestone Cache (GC9BA0), too. If I forgot, I meant to write! Thanks for the compliment. The 'Fossil Zone' is a really nice EC. Unfortunately, for our trip West, all I had loaded up in the GPSr were earthcaches and we didn't know about the traditional cache at the site. I think even an old guy like me could have made it to the top (that is using the more easy route!) With a lot of time restraints and four grand kids, I think we visited only three ECs during the trip and one was previously logged.

Is there a 'restriction on Indian Mounds'? Who knows? Some have been approved in the past and there is no way of knowing if or how many haven't been approved. While we like Indian mounds very much, it's a stretch to show geological implications. Piled up dirt is piled up dirt no matter what it may contain. The grand daddy of Indian mounds is the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site just outside of St. Louis, MO. It is wonderful and well worth the visit. We have all heard of Inca, Aztec and Mayan ruins, but most don't know of our ancient Indian city which at one time had a population of thousands. Other than dirt being carried basket by basket to build structures several stories high, it's hard to see the geology of it, but we are glad it was approved.

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience. Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process. Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers. I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one. I wouldn't be thrilled either at the denial. After all you did mention location as being one of the two things that earthcaches are about and no two locations are the same! When you view a waterfall or a spring, do your really have to be told how they are different from another waterfall or spring? As far as questions go, have you ever seen a two waterfalls that were the same height or width or have the same volume? Yes, some have the same classification, but that's it! Or lets take the other red headed stepson at the family reunion..........springs. Same volume as another , same temperature as another, same pH as another................we think not! As I said in an earlier post..........consistency, consistency, consistency!

I disagree. The earthcache is about two things: the location and the lessons learned there. Show me what's different about this spring or this waterfall, AND teach me a site-specific lesson that's different from other earthcaches at other natural features. But if it's another artesian well, and all you're going to ask me is flow rate, and you can't showcase something unique about that feature and teach me about it, then you've basically created the EC equivalent of a lamp post micro. And maybe you really like lamp post micros. Fair enough, but I don't, and obviously geoaware and the other reviewers don't want just cookie cutter earthcaches diluting the experience. Really, it's not just springs and waterfalls -- those are just the two most abused earthcache subjects. Bottom line is, it's harder to make an earthcache than it used to be in order to inject more quality control into the process. Case in point: I tried submitting one on a glacial lagoon in western Iceland. It's a beautiful spot, and I thought it deserved an earthcache. I knew there was an earthcache at a more popular lagoon, Jökulsárlón about 20 miles away, so I tried to focus on different lessons and avoid copying the other earthcache. My submission was denied, because there wasn't enough difference between the two lagoons themselves, even though I was tring to teach different information to cachers. I wasn't thrilled, but I get it: I had the lesson side of the equation, but I didn't have a unique enough natural feature. I needed both sides of the coin, I only had one. Thank you! You get it...and said it so well! I guess that this is what I do not understand about the evolution of EarthCaching. In the beginning, anyone could list almost anything as an EarthCache. And, believe me, I've seen some pretty bad ones. A so-called glacial erratic dumped from a truck, and landed upside-down, with coords 80' off? (As I understand glacial erratic, it is a rock carried by a glacier, but of a different geology than the rock it landed on. Thus, a putple puddingstone boulder carried twenty miles, and deposited on purple puddingstone would not qualify.) I guess that TPTB were interested in getting many EarthCaches listed, and, umm... had lower requirements??? Now that that quota has been filled, the requirements are far more stringent??? Too many springs, too many glacial erratics. Stop publishing them?? Sorry... "Require unique earth science educational experiences." I do realize that when EarthCaches move to Waymarking, the move back required re-evaluation of the educational lessons. Many were archived. Most were not. But it seems to me that most of the older ones would not meet the newer stringent requirements. And, yet, then, we see many new ones with little or no earth science lessons. "Which way are the birds flying?" "Which way is the wind blowing?" If TPTB at EarthCaching want to set more stringent guidelines, then they should be consistent. Not blowing in the wind. Oh, well. I see a major problem here. And that problem is inconsistency in applying the guidelines. Some EarthCache COs seem to get away with anything. Others cannot get interesting lessons/EarthCaches published "because there are too many of them." If a spring or waterfall is interesting, and has a lesson to be taught, then it should be acceptable as an EarthCache. I think TPTB need to rethink what it is that they are trying to accomplish. Thank you. You get it..... and said it so well! My biggest gripe with earthcaching and perhaps the only one is inconsistency!

We never saw a springs or waterfall EC that we didn't like! Get tired of them? It is hardly possible with us. Yes, some of the educational requirements may be alike, but there are just so many different questions that can be asked with a waterfall or spring EC. Because the questions may be redundant doesn't mean the EC is redundant! What about rock shelters, sink holes, outcrops, mountains, caves, mines, confluences, faults? Just like waterfalls and springs, there are no two alike! No geological feature ought to be eliminated including those which have already fallen out of favor!

Good for you! You don't know how pleased we are to see so many ECers sending notes although we haven't heard from a lot of cachers. Thanks.

Please......may we forget about auto responders? If some cacher wants to spend their money for the necessary software, that is their business! In the final analysis, even though Geoaware is right and using them is kinda against the grain of earthcaching, I guess an auto response is better than no response! Not much, but better than nothing! One last word on how we do it. After receiving the email notification of an EC log we wait until the second email with the required educational information. After that, we send our 'thanks for visiting' note. Unless the answers are way out in left field (wrong or totally inaccurate), we usually say your answers are: great, nice, close enough, etc. (pick one). If a pic is included with the log, we tell the cacher that we enjoyed the pic(s). Absent the second email with the required answers, we send a gentle email reminder to the cacher telling them of the requirements. For newbie cachers, we are especially gentle making allowances for their inexperience even though the requirements are spelled out on the cache page. Those emails go in to a follow-up file and after a couple of weeks and no response, we delete the log. With all the ECs we have you could count the number of deletions on both hands and thank goodness for that. I hate log deletions because locally, a couple of years back, we saw a vast abuse of it with nothing being done by GS. P.S. The log deletion abuse was not on earthcaches and not on any of our logs, but that's another topic!

"Most of the ECs in my area use them"? Your area seems to be representative of almost every exceptional oddity in regard to earthcaching. I have never run across a response that looked automatic. "Most" is very categorical! Maybe they have a use, especially for businesses, but as I have found out they are automatic and not responsive to an email containing specific answers to required questions (educational experience). The use of them would preclude the CO reviewing to accomplishment of the EC requirements. As Geoaware said, the use of an automatic responder could "... lead to weak logging tasks and no communication between the developer and the visitor". We certainly don't advocate the use of them in regard to earthcaching! We are talking about the CO responding to a log not some bit of software spitting out a response like "I'm on vacation and will get back with you" which would be appropriate if true and followed up. Something generic like "thanks for visiting our EC" may be better than nothing but not by much! I would assume that the auto responder cannot check answers or personalize such as mentioning the cache or cacher's name. Thanks.

We don't use nor do I know what an 'automatic email' responder is. I wouldn't know an 'automatic email responder' if it jumped up and bit me on the butt. In this day-n-age of electronic marvels I don't doubt that 'automatic email responders' exist, but we don't use them nor can we tell if others use them. When something specific like the EC name or a personal reference is used, I doubt if anything was automatic except the good manners of the cache owner! Regardless, auto or not, a response acknowledging your find is nice.

Flintstone5611, we don't deserve any thanks, but thanks anyway! It's like Geoaware said, "I think its good etiquette!" Although I'll be the first to admit that logs like "TFTC" or similar quick cut-n-paste logs don't inspire a lot of courtesy, we still do it. As a lot of you know, I'm far from perfect, but acknowledging a visit is important to us. As a result, a few times we have been asked to help with a cacher's first EC and that is fun. Maybe after a vacation or camping trip the logs can stack up but a short couple of sentences isn't that much of a bother. If the requirements are not met and we just get a log notification I still send a note with a little nudge for the answers. Ninety percent plus comply. Someone mentioned blocked email addresses. It's kind of a pain, but clicking on the cacher's profile to use 'send message' isn't as fun, but it isn't hard. While it is everyone's right and I would never question it, thank goodness most don't block their return email address. When I think about it, it's hard to remember visiting others ECs and not receiving a note back. Maybe there have been a few but I just don't remember them. I guess we are not that much different after all, especially considering all of you who have responded. Thanks.

As a lot of you know, Marge and I have a few earthcaches and after most weekends and at other times we get a lot of email notifications of a cacher(s) logging their finds. We always send a kind of thank you for visiting email after each log. Our question, do you fellow EC owners acknowledge finds on your ECs or is it a total waste of time? Please, we have enough dramatics here..........just a friendly discussion. Thanks.

Hey Nuttyguy, Don't hold your breath. In this day and age, if it can't be found in 5 minutes your EC may remain very lonely. It looks great and I only wish we were a bit closer. There seems to be a mad dash for the guardrails and lamp poles, but something as worthy as your EC is just too far off the beaten path! Too bad! Yes, we also have a couple of drive by ECs and they are OK, but are not our favorites. The tough ones seldom get visited. Keep up the good work!

Unfettered access? I have no idea what that means or if it has ever, ever been granted to anyone! If it is open to the public, it's open to the public. I have never heard of a State or National Park which is open to the public which doesn't communicate with that same public where is can go! If you are not allowed there, they will tell you one way or another i.e. signs, trail markers, brochures or trained guard dogs with big teeth and no love for any other human other than their handler! And yes, months is too long to wait. No, it's not life or death and that's not much of an argument or excuse taking excessive amounts of time to respond. Let's move out of the realm of theory to an actual case. I will not mention the park to preserve someone's dignity, but it took me 7 months to get approval and for most of that 7 months, there was no response! We are volunteers and 'friends of this park' and they have asked me to do other ECs. I even have an award from the same park, but 7 months? I have been asked to be a speaker at one of their regional conferences, but 7 months? Sorry and maybe you are in your twenties and 7 months is nothing to you but to someone who in in his upper sixties, 7 months is a lot of time! No not life and death, but some of us have more and some of us have less time. Just like so many in government, some forget who they really work for! Technically speaking, unless it's another guideline that has changed but not communicated, you must have visited the site within the last couple of months! Heck at the rate some government bureaucrats respond, your sedimentary rock may have metamorphosed into something else so then a rewrite becomes necessary. My apology, I couldn't that..........the devil made me do it!

"Giving them a heads up", no problem. Crawling on your hands and knees to ask permission and waiting for months for a reply, problem! As I said, the assumption is the cache is placed in a public, not an off limits area. Most parks do a good job educating visitors as to which is which. If a cache developer is dumb or arrogant enough to 'place' an earthcache is an off limits area, he or she ought to be banned from the park or from earthcaching!

We share your philosophy and approach to awarding 'Faves' exactly. Very few ECs don't receive a favorite. Thanks.

The place has always been dangerous from a hiking or climbing standpoint. I am told that there is a new owner who hasn't bothered to post the area (yet?), but want's no trespassers which is his right. As far as local law enforcement is concerned, if called with a trespass violation they will intervene, otherwise, they couldn't care less! 1985? Don't you think that is a little out of date? We have been there a few times within the last year and never, never saw any sign of drug use except for perhaps a used band aid wrapper and no harm came to any of our vehicles. It boils down to one thing....new owner, new rules although we understand there is some dispute as to who owns what! The only harm we have ever seen to anything is from those dad blame ATVs. Deep ruts and mud holes have resulted from uncaring ATV operators, but thank goodness the problem is far from the Falls unless some joker decides to run his ATV in the stream therefore creating a muddy water flow over the Falls. Please don't blame all ATV riders, dumbness/couldn't care less, is an affliction that ruins a lot of things.

Sorry, but once again, unless it it private property, permission for an EC on public property (parks, etc) is or at least should be unnecessary! Our parks benefit from our work and we shouldn't ask anyone to go to a prohibited area so if it is legal, why the permission? I am told by some lawmakers that there is no way permission can be denied! I am all for developing relationships and keeping in touch with the Park managers, but that can be done without dealing with the red tape and inefficiencies of our government. We belong to several "Friends of the...(insert park name)" and that's how to create good will, not asking permission for cachers to go where they are invited to go in the first place! Thanks. P.S. I am sorry we are into this again because all arguments have been made at least a hundred times before with the same result!