mockkkk

That's not a safe assumption. The NPS leaves geocaching policy decisions to the unit management. Some allow geocaching and some do not, depending on considerations like the mission of the unit, environmental sensitivity and traffic. Perhaps your reviewer knows that this NPS unit never allows geocaches. Any statistics or estimates on how many do vs. how many do not allow them? I know that it does depend on the local management, but it has been my understanding that only very, very few have been allowed. Is my information out of date? I wouldn't know the statistics but I will be happy to report back after reaching out to them. If there were ever an area that an exception could be made, this is certainly one. When you look over all of the reasons geocaching is prohibited in national parks and wilderness areas, they make a lot of sense. A cache being in place for a decade will definitely cause new erosion and trails to form. Even if cachers practice leave no trace, and CITO and other positive actions, there are negative aspects that are unavoidable. However, in this situation there is nothing but pavement and man made structures. Again I will report back!

Interesting, thanks for the information. I did not realize that this had been done before. Maybe because of the atypical situation here I will give reaching out to the NPS a shot. Can't hurt, right? I'm not too optimistic but it's worth a try. The park is a beautiful place frequented by many lovers of the outdoors every day. It's a shame that geocaches are not permitted, at least in the more developed areas. Again, I keep coming back to a super invasive activity like carving 4x4 roads through the dunes being permitted, while geocaching is supposedly too invasive for the area. I know they get the final say (whether its the county or NPS), but that's a hard sell.

Actually, that's not clear to me at all. We have a few situations like you describe in my area, in which areas are jointly managed by State/NPS and County/NPS. In those cases, NPS rules trump the local standard. This is consistent with most Federal Regulations, in which States must adhere to a certain minimum standard (i.e. worker safety, wages etc.). If you went with NPS permission, as mentioned by CTR, it seems unlikely that the Reviewer would contest it. He didn't mention NPS permission, by my understanding he suggested ignoring what lies within or without the FINS boundary and instead focus on who built the dock in question, which would be the county. I was able to find this: http://www.nps.gov/fiis/planyourvisit/smith-point-county-park.htm Which states that while it lies within the boundary, the area is not managed by the NPS. If the NPS does not have a managing stake in the land and what goes on there, you would think that approaching the entity that does would be the first people to go to, correct? I am assuming that in all cases the NPS denies placement of geocaches within it's boundaries. However, in this case if I were to go to them and inquire, I would guess that in this unique case they would refer me to the body that manages the park, namely the county.

The dock is a memorial fishing pier that was built by the county. There is a plaque on it stating as such. Again, maybe it wouldn't hurt to ask the at the office in the park. If the National Park Service is the entity that has a problem with geocaching, and they don't manage this area, then it seems that the entity that does manage the area should get to make the decision, right?

I actually did a bit more research and was able to find out that "Smith Point County Park" was designated as lying within the boundaries of the national seashore but that it is not managed or attended to by the National Park Service. This is clear by the fact that many activities that would not be permitted in a National Park are permitted in the County Park. I wonder if approval from the County, as the entity that manages the park, would be appropriate in order to open it up to geocaching? Or perhaps even then the reviewer would give the same response.. Whether or not this is a lost cause, people must agree in this case it is a silly restriction. There is no harm in placing a cache in a 1/2 mile long parking lot...other than the slippery slope of having to actually closely review future caches rather than just blindly approving them unless they fall within a pre-designated "no-cache" zone.

Actually, I am looking at the map now, and it seems that at least according to that map (and the one officially placed on the FINS website, here: http://www.nps.gov/fiis/planyourvisit/maps.htm) the area I was trying to place a cache might actually not be within the FINS. According to the map, areas that are part of the FINS are shaded dark green, while areas that are "wilderness areas" are shaded with stripes. Finally, regular park lands are shaded in light green. If you're going to go to the trouble of shading certain areas with a color designating that they are part of the FINS, it would seem to imply that areas not shaded with that color are not part of the FINS, and, (in the case of where my placement was going to be, just east of the eastern bridge) are part of a county park only. Accordingly, both my proposed placement as well as the cache that has been in existence at the eastern end of the island are both within this green area, and are NOT shaded to indicate that they are part of the FINS. When you enter the area in a vehicle, heading south across the Smith Point Bridge, there are signs once you reach Fire Island that state that the Fire Island National Seashore is to the right, while Smith Point County Park is to the left. Even on land it seems that the FINS is regarded to be a separate area and not one and the same with County Park. Am I right here? Just curious!

Hello everyone! Wanted to bring a query to you all. I recently started working on hiding a series of geocaches near my home, on Long Island, in NY. I have placed around ten or so caches. I noticed that in Smith Point County Park, which is a very large park on Fire Island just south of where I live, there were a very limited number of geocaches. I figured that this was either A: Because the area is unpredictable with regard to weather, flooding and erosion, or B: Because placing geocaches in the area (Which is not only a county park, but also part of the Fire Island National Seashore) was prohibited. Anyway, I figured I would try to place a hide and if it got rejected, so be it. So, I drove my car into the massive parking lot, parked, and walked from the parking lot onto a small fishing pier that extends north from Fire Island into Moriches Bay. The cache I placed was a small black bison tube, attached to a plastic conduit box at the end of the dock. You weren't able to see the box or the cache without leaning way over the railing and reaching down. I thought it was pretty clever! However, as you might expect, I received a notification from our reviewer stating that geocaching is not permitted within the boundaries of the Fire Island National Seashore (FINS). Sure, I get it. Then, I looked up a map just to double check- and saw that yes, the parking lot and dock, despite being completely man made structures, are within the seashore. The reviewer was right in rejecting my placement. At the same time, I also compared that map to the map on Geocaching.com's website, and to my surprise, realized that there is another traditional geocache on Fire Island, which is well within the boundaries of the FINS. It is located at the far eastern end of the island, which is only accessible by 4x4 vehicle, boat, or a 6 mile hike. This cache is placed in the wilderness, where supposedly things are left in their natural state. So there are a number of questions I have here. Before I get to them, let me state that I am not trying to justify my own cache placement. I understand that existing caches do not serve as precedent for new placements. Just the same, it seems like if a standard is going to be applied, that it should be applied universally, no? So, my questions: Why is this geocache: http://coord.info/GCGDCG permitted to exist when my placement (and others) are not? Clearly, this cache was placed a very long time ago and things may not have been so strict then. But, if geocaching is an activity that is not permitted within National Seashore areas, why is this one allowed to endure? Doesn't that cast us in a bad light? Keep in mind, I have no interest in depriving a geocache-barren area of the one that has stood the test of time. I am just trying to understand the reasoning here. Finally, though I am sure this has been discussed at great length here, how can carving deep 4x4 trails through sand dunes on a quickly eroding island be permitted and practiced regularly, when the placing of geocaches, which is a minimally invasive activity in comparison, is not? (Hint: people have to pay $75 for a pass to drive on the beach; they pay nothing to geocache). Is this ethical behavior? On top of that, as I have mentioned the only way to reach this existing geocache is by 4x4 vehicle, a difficult boat trip, or a very very long walk. Surely someone taking a jeep out to the far end of the island is more invasive than someone walking across a parking lot out onto a fishing pier that is designed for humans to use. I am just trying to get a clear picture of what standards are used here, and why they are in place. It certainly makes sense that an area that we are trying to leave in it's natural state be free of geocaches and other human made intrusions. However, this area certainly is not that, and I would think that a geocache in a parking lot or on a dock would be much more permissible than one out in the wilderness within the same boundary, if the two were to be compared. Ultimately I am just interested in engaging the community in the discussion and seeing what people think. Should the existing cache be archived? Is it right that the reviewer ignored my questions about placement guidelines? I am of the opinion that while geocaching can certainly be forbidden within wilderness and nationally protected areas, preventing them from being placed in areas which humans have already developed, because of an arbitrary imaginary line seems silly. Clearly if a geocache has existed in the wilderness within that boundary since 2003 without causing any issues, than one can exist within that boundary on a fishing dock attached to a parking lot without causing issues. That's my view, and I am interested in hearing yours. I am attaching a map of the FINS for your consideration. Thank you all for what will hopefully be a respectful and insightful debate! -mockkkk

Going along with what most people here have said, I will not log a "Found It" unless I have signed the log...with a few exceptions: -If I held the log in my hand but it was not signable due to being wet, full, reduced to shreds, covered in mold, etc. In these cases I always take a picture of the log and upload the photo to prove that I did indeed make the find. -If I held the log in my hand but was unable to sign because of writing utensil issues; i.e. pen got lost, ran out of ink, exploded (Once I signed a log by dipping my finger in ink from my pocket, where the pen exploded and writing my fingers...lol). -If I was able to touch the container, but could not open it because of unintended conditions- i.e. rusted shut, frozen shut, etc. In these situations I would always upload a photo of the container (without spoilers) and would post details of why I could not sign the log. I would post a maintenance log if necessary. -If I was able to open the container but the log was missing, or I could not get it out of the container because it was stuck. In this case I would upload a photo and inform the CO of the issue, unless I was able to replace a new log myself. I will not log it as found if the container is not present. A trip to the GZ does not = a find. I will not log it as found if I saw the container but it was out of reach as part of the hiding process (i.e. up a tree I could not climb) or if I was lacking the tools to retrieve it as required by the design of the hide. I think the basic guideline should be: 1. The cache is actually there. 2. You completed all aspects of finding as intended by the CO. 3. You held the log or container, but did not sign the log because of barriers not intended by the CO. If a find meets these criteria, you should be able to log the cache as found. These are the guidelines I try to live by. Though I will be the first to admit, there have been nanos I have found that I *could* have retrieved the log from and signed, but I instead opted to photo log because it was too cold or because I didn't want to attract too much attention to the area by taking 10 minutes to get the log out, sign it and then properly roll it back up. If I am logging a find, I will ALWAYS have either signed the log, or have included a spoiler-less photo of the cache and/or log sheet and a reason why I did not sign. Finally, if I was unable to find a geocache, or if I suspect anything about the hide was off, I always log a DNF, maintenance needed, or needs archived. I have no issues with requesting that a cache be archived. Geocaches are not permanent fixtures, and their level of quality will naturally degrade with time (some quickly, some very slowly). Accurate logs of experiences are the only way we can gauge this quality. I look at it as the duty of each cacher to relay this information. It's sort of an implied contract you sign as a member of the community, to me. It's part of the fun of the activity, that the geocaches are not only created by us, but perpetuated by us. The more feedback there is (good or bad) the higher the quality of the geocaches will be. Now, does everyone feel that way? Certainly not. But if they did, we'd all have a lot more fun and enjoyment when partaking in this great hobby. Log your DNFs, NM's, and NA's where appropriate please. Don't worry about the CO's feelings or your own pride. As a CO of a number of caches I take no offense at being asked to archive a cache. I either repair it, replace it, or I get to tell the person who requested archived in error to try a little harder.

Cache a day streaks are nothing new. There's a cacher from California (kablooey) that found at least one cache a day for over 10 years. If I tried to find a cache a day I doubt it would last more than a few months before I was spending at least an hour a day just to get to/from the nearest cache. A few years ago, over a 5 month period, there were less than 10 new caches placed within a 30 mile radius of where I live. I'm sure that if I were willing to drive a couple of hours each day just to find a cache I could do a one year streak. On the other hand, of the 246 countries/territories recognized by GS, 75% of them have fewer than 365 caches in the entire country. I don't know how anyone can do really long streaks. I quit at 19 days--just too time consuming, and that's despite consistently having 5000 caches within 50 miles and about 600 within 10 miles. Wow, thanks for the great positive words, guys! I know that caching streaks are nothing new. On Project GC, going through the first 350 pages of cachers with the highest days in a row finding a cache gets you down to people who have cached for over two years in a row. There are 30 results per page. That means that between those people on page 350 and Kablooey, there are about 10,500 people, ranging in days from Kablooey's 3712 days to someone with 800 days in a row making a find. So yeah, there are a lot of people that do this already. A lot of people find this unfeasible because of their location. Other people wouldn't enjoy something like this. Does any of that have any bearing on my decision to do one of my own and document it on a dedicated Instagram page? No, not at all. I wanted to have a lot more geocaching in my life, and I wanted to document each find, and this is one way for me to do that. I didn't say "Hey, I've got this great idea to find one cache every day, aren't I brilliant!?" No one else here felt the need to negatively comment on anyone's proposed 2016 caching goals. The thread is "2016 geocaching goals or resolutions". Was one of your 2016 goals to berate other cachers ideas, tell them "wow I wouldn't do that" or tell them that their idea has "been done before"? How about a nice "Not for me, but good luck to you!"? Grow some manners. Honestly! I can't stand rude people.

For what it's worth, I live in the same area as the OP. Because I saw this thread, I brought up google maps and was able to figure out which business he was talking about. However, if the hide had been placed with his original text, guess what? I still would have had to bring up google maps and figure out which business he was talking about. Or search for it once I got there in person. I think as long as you don't specifically name the establishment- and maybe if you skip the promotional-speak (i.e. "best on the island...", etc) than you should be in the clear. Does placing a cache on the shore near a lighthouse and saying that the "lighthouse offers the best views on the island, try it out while you're caching" violate the terms if you have to pay to enter the lighthouse? I've seen lots of caches near theaters and restaurants- chains, mind you...not stand-alone small-businesses- that reference the business nearby. I think you should be able to *reference* them- if not name them directly. I also think you should be able to state why the place is significant to you; for example "I like coming here after going caching and grabbing a burger" doesn't seem to me to be a huge problem. I think if you cross into "Establishment X has the BEST drinks" or are making objective, solicitory statements about the place, that might be off limits. But to limit cache placement over something like this is silly. This seems to be a unique place (I'm sure as hell going to try it out now) and the location is significant to the CO. I guess beyond all my blabbing above, I would suggest to the CO: Definitely continue to hide caches near places that are significant to you. Just be careful about specifically referencing the services they offer. (If I had my way, the rule would be that if you're promoting a small business or non-chain restaurant/store, go ahead...Chain promotion should be off limits. But alas, I don't make the rules.)

Cachers who don't log DNF's: No shame in logging a frown. You're helping the community. I always log DNF's because I want other people to know what they're getting into! Also I might feel frustrated that I couldn't find it- which either means it outsmarted me, or it's not there. If others come along and log DNF's and the cache actually isn't there, that means I wasn't outsmarted! Always log DNF's. Caches hidden in dangerous areas: Sumps, fenced off areas, near interstate highways, etc. That were somehow approved. I have found a few of these and reported them for archival and usually I am ignored. If you have to hop a fence and are 60 feet from an interstate highway shoulder, something is wrong Power Trails: Despite what many people say, I do think that numbers matter a little. The number of smileys you have is sort of a point of honor and, to me, shows how many cool places you've been. After all, that's what geocaching is about- bringing you to cool places you otherwise wouldn't have visited. Power trails on the other hand, defeat this purpose and cheapen the smiley. I can think of nothing more nonsensical than spending hours driving down a road and stopping every tenth of a mile to sign a log. It's a waste of time, it's a waste of gas, and I just don't understand it. If a stretch of road is cool, hide a cache at the beginning, hide a cache at the end, and tell people to drive from point A to point B. The concept of power trails really angers me BUT- to each their own, I guess. I GUESS. lol. I do believe that each person can play the game the way they want to, so whatever, as long as it doesnt directly affect my experience.

An acquaintance of my fiance has been running an Instagram account for over three years called "newbeeraday". It's just what it sounds like- he tries a new beer every single day! I thought this was a very cool idea, so with the turn of the year I implemented my own! It's called- you guessed it: "newcacheaday". While the undertaking is pretty massive (I don't want to stop at the end of the year, I am planning on just continuing for as long as I can) one thing that keeps me going is that finding a new cache every day has to be easier than finding a new beer to drink every single day! At least where I live...there are thousands of caches on Long Island. Anyway if anyone is interested in following my progress I will be cataloging my adventures here: www.instagram.com/newcacheaday Also if anyone is interested in the idea that inspired me, it can be found here: www.instagram.com/newbeeraday Happy New Year to all and hope you all meet your resolutions

If I were you I would do it, it utilizes something that is currently nothing more than litter. If the original CO appears and has a problem with it, you could always defend yourself by pointing out this fact, or just simply give it back to him.

I recently upgraded to a premium membership, and I also recently started using the iphone app to do most of my caching. I am curious, as I am new to both of these. Is there any advantage to using pocket queries on my iphone if I am just doing basic caching in my area? To put this more clearly; when I don't need to find caches along a route or search by attributes. The one thing I can think of is that by viewing the caches through a previously downloaded pocket query, I could turn off data and save some battery life on the iphone when out in the field. Neither data nor battery life has been a problem for me, so I am thinking I'm just as well off using the "find nearby geocaches" search option in the iphone app do to my searching. Just wondering if I'm missing something or if I have this pretty clear. I know there is a lot of info out there on queries and their usefulness, but as I already have the data plan detailed cache information in the field is already at my fingertips. So advantages to the pocket query with my setup would be caches along a route, advanced search filtering, etc?

Not really a bad idea actually, I can't believe I didn't think of this

I am in the process of building a series of caches in my town. I love cache series! I'm also a baseball fan, so I have been naming the caches after baseball teams, with an eventual 30 caches in total (one for each team in the MLB). Here's an example. However, I have gotten some comments that my names are not original enough because they don't really have anything to do with the caches or locations themselves. While the areas I've chosen so far are all very significant to me and are places I'd like to share with others (I can't stand caches placed in completely random areas), I am wondering now if I should change the names of the caches I've placed thus far to be more memorable. What are some community members thoughts on changing the names of caches? If I did it I'd put a note on each listing about what it used to be named and my reasoning for changing the names. Just looking for some constructive input! Thanks in advance!