geoawareUSA2

+1 I have not read the entire thread, but In today's world many cache with smart phones, and gather information to log later. The reason this is advised is because too many cachers are put off by Earthcaching when the cache owner deletes a cache the moment there is not an answer. Most deletions make someone upset, it is not that hard to give someone enough time to get off vacation and respond. What GAUSA9 mentioned is what I have heard as well. It is not earthshattering, just common courtesy. Yes the other can post a note, but many newer cachers, and some experienced cachers have not idea how to do that.

I will see what I can do. My guess is that one of the two marked it as being worked on (it does not show up in the queue) and I assume both reviewers think the other is working on it. I will see if I can get one of them to get it back into the queue.

You cannot require a picture, and you have to have logging tasks. The Earthcache program is about teaching others. So creating an photo -or- task actually defeats that purpose, and normally would not be published. I have seen where the cache owner gave two tracks. Logging tasks A,B,C but they involve bringing something to the site to do an experiment, or do D,E,F,G that would take you more time but would not include bringing materials in advance. That would be allowed.

Be aware that the NPS in Glacier National Park is asking for a permit for earthcaches there. $100 if I remember right. When you contact them for permission and for them to email to the Earthcache reviewer they will let you know. The 2-3 others that were being worked on gave up when they were told the permit cost.

For the record I have had emails/phones calls with National Parks about five caches they denied permission for. One was in an area the park did not want people in. It was too dangerous, and park policy has closed the trails except in special circumstances. Two were in areas where they were trying to save an endangered plant, so they were trying to minimize impact in that area. Another was at a location where there was Obsidian, there was not a lot and they feared that highlighting the fact it was there would increase scavenging/collecting, so they ask that it not be included. A phone discussion with NPS in the desert southwest let me know they did not want an Earthcache at a location in deference to a local Indian Tribe. The Earthcache bordered the Indian Reservation and is considered Sacred to the native American. They manage that location to minimize visitors and impact. So there are instances. Are they common? No. But they are there. There are instances were the parks do not want people at specific locations.

I echo this point. Just like regular reviewing when you deal with proximity, commercial, or permission, a cache is not listed until it meets the guidelines. If it does meet the guidelines, and I don't like it, it is still listed. Have changes taken place? Yes, with 10ish Earthcaches reviewers we can review them, and help people develop them, That is easier now than a few years ago when Geoaware did all the Earthcaches.

There is no permission granted for the Navajo Reservation, so You pass the buck to the cache owner saying it is up to him to decide if it can be logged. What cache owner will say no you can't log it? They submitted the cache so people would visit it. Slick, real slick. John The people that lease the property have given the ok. The contact with the reservation I had right after was both positive and negative. Some saying on leased property that would be ok. The other saying they were not sure so they would say no. Neither felt as if it were in their prerogative to make on official statement for the tribe. The cache owner has been in contact with me, wondering if it should be archived, or enabled. It has been left that way until we can get a final answer. If the cache owner gets tired of complaints, or waiting for a definitive answer it will be archived. I will archive it if it looks like that is the direction talks are going, or enable it if it feels ok. He has been patient through this process, and I thank him for that. We are being cautious because this could effect other caches, and caching on the reservation. Living down there I am sure you are aware of the slow bureaucracy that some tribes have. No one wants to go on record and get in trouble, only toss their thoughts on the matter.

We are in the process of working withe the tribe, it is proving to be a long slow process. There are a number of issues at play. Land ownership (tribe), and personal property (as the motel has a lease). The decision was to disable it while the process was ongoing, and the cache owners other caches were not listed and have been on hold. I have not chose to archive it but leave it disabled. If people wish to log it, it is up to the cache owner. Hopefully a resolution will be forthcoming. I have heard a few things in my contacts from different individuals, one stating it was ok, and another that it was not. However neither felt they could speak for the tribe. Passed the info on, and into a void. So it is disabled. Hopefully a resolution can be reached.

I think it is important to look at what Earthcaching is... it's goal.. and how it is accomplished. It is accomplished by Taking you to a unique location. Teaching you about the site. Either through the cache page, interpretive signs, or logging tasks at the location. Have you perform logging tasks to prove you were there. Certain things were limited. Terrydads answer was right. Is a Glacial Erratic, spring, or waterfall a few hundred miles from another tossed out. No. However when a reviewer sees those they throw a red flag. It tells us to look closer. The biggest problem is the write-ups are identical, and as Neos2 pointed out, It gets boring to do the same thing at different places. Hopefully one of the things that people enjoy about them is that it takes you to new places, and teaches you new things. With Yellowstone I see a number of write-ups about geysers. Does every geyser, mud pot, or fumerole need an earthcache this identical to the others? People would loose interest in them. Making them unique saying what is special about the geology of the location adds to the interest.

How similar? exactly similar? Does it have different science? sort of? and what is the area like? How long does it take to get from one to the other? If you owned the one that exists would the new one too close and too identical to be comfortable? Can you focus on something different to highlight a different aspect? Is it site specific? It really varies from topic to topic, and write up to write up.

I did not mean to imply that there should be a blanket policy for all reservations. Policy differs with each tribe. There are some amazing geological formations on Acoma land, for instance, where permits are required for private photography even if you are simply driving through on a public road. The Navajo do not impose the same kind of restrictions. The two nations could have different policies regarding earthcaches. The post, however, implied that an earthcache centered at a business would not present a problem while one at a roadside (like the "other" active earthcache on Navajo land, which discusses entry points and requires photography) might raise a bigger issue. As far as I know, no one has reported whether the tribal authority made this distinction. A tribe could have no issues with either cache and not want to get involved. They could ask to approve any earthcache on their land (like the NPS). They could welcome earthcaching as a way to bring tourism to the area. They could decide they don't like geologists. In other words, I was trying to ask if they did adopt a policy similar to the NPS, in regard to their reservation, would there be the type of distinction made in the previous post? It is good that the GSA and Groundspeak discussed the issue, and are attempting to narrow one of the earthcaches, but was the tribal authority part of the discussion? As i wrote in a previous post, i would not presume to answer any of these questions. But I would ask those who can. I apologize for my wording. "The location at the place of business would be appropriate, people go there for a reason approved by the owner and tribe." Should have read. "The location at THIS place of business...". I was discussing this cache in particular, not issuing blanket policy for all Native American Lands. Native American Nations are just that-individually governed nations. Just as we treat a cache in Romania different than the US or Germany. Each Nation and submission will be looked at. Expect more scrutiny and questions when they fall within tribal lands. If tourists snapping pictures are allowed at a location you stand a far higher chance to be approved than a cache at a location where those activities are not allowed. (Note do not interject commentary on the photo requirements, this is just an example)

Sorry I could not resist.

I will interject a note here. The location at the place of business would be appropriate, people go there for a reason approved by the owner and tribe. The bigger issue would be the stop along the roadside. Without permission for a specific location a person could travel anywhere in the name of "completing the Earthcache requirement". Because we are not from the area, encouraging people to pull over and possibly trespass on property that the Navajo may considered sacred would be inappropriate. Every tribe, and location in the west is different and we do not wish to offend those that do not wish people on their property. I am currently working with the owner to determine if the logging requirements can be reworked from the initial location. We thank those that bring up these issues. Where every state has its own reviewer and knows tribal boundaries, wilderness areas, and specific rules within their boundaries, Earthcache reviewers are far fewer and we cover large areas of the states/world, and we are not as familiar as the local reviewers. I would encourage anyone with a concern to contact the individual that listed the cache with concerns, and have discussions here when needed. We have had a good discussion among the reviewers, GSA, and Groundspeak and most likely that discussion will continue as these pop up.

Happy new year to all of you. Hope the last year was great, and the next will be even better.