Frolickin

Well, I decided to call a state park and ask directly. I was provided some information, but was also told that there had been a discussion about caching. That sparked my interest. I asked whether it was a local discussion (within the state park) or broader. I was told it was among all the state parks. The superintendent of the state park I contacted will get back to me later with some more specifics, but he recalled the discussion going along the lines that all caches in state parks will be considered litter unless permission is granted. He said something along the lines that only EVENTS would be approved. He seemed shaky on what he was saying. I asked a follow-up and he said he would dig for the information. We have been playing phone tag since. This is not sounding good at all.

I have been trying to locate the "official" definition of littering. It is not as easy as it sounds. What I have gleaned thus far . . . in 1985 there was Solid Waste Management Act. In it was a program, since re-named the Clean Communities Program. Sometime between 1985 and today, the following definition was established for littering: "Litter" means any used or unconsumed substance or waste material which has been discarded, whether made of aluminum, glass, plastic, rubber, paper, or other natural or synthetic material, or any combination thereof, including, but not limited to, any bottle, jar or can, or any top, cap or detachable tab of any bottle, jar or can, any unlighted cigarette, cigar, match or any flaming or glowing material or any garbage, trash, refuse, debris, rubbish, grass clippings or other lawn or garden waste, newspapers, magazines, glass, metal, plastic or paper containers or other packaging or construction material, but does not include the waste of the primary processes of mining or other extraction processes, logging, sawmilling, farming or manufacturing. 13:1E-215 Definitions relative to the Clean Communities Program. The Clean Communities Program provides money to communities to help them stamp out littering. To receive money, each municipality had to pass a littering ordinance. It is thought, but not necessarily the case, that municipalities have used the above definition. Municipalities were under no mandate to use that definition. All that makes sense. If I toss a soda can onto the street of Anytown, NJ, I am certain there is some ordinance which I have broken. The lady I spoke to at the Clean Communities Program was unable to state equivocally whether or not the above definition would be the one used for state lands. I offered the same example: If I toss a soda can on the ground in a state park or forest, what definition of littering would a state law use. She felt it would be the one in the Clean Communities Program, but is uncertain. My search will continue. If, however, the above definition is the one that would be used, I cannot see how a cache would be considered litter. The operative word in the definition seems to be "discarded". A cache is not discarded.

I just got off the telephone with Alan Mounier. Mounier is a local archaeologist. We had spoken before about another topic, but this one was truly eye-opening. A1930 was introduced to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee (composed mostly of South Jersey assemblymen). We both believe it must be the same bill as A3101/S2473. Mounier indicated that that bill had been introduced last year to the same committee. I mentioned sub-section b. Mounier, before he heard anything from me, said that part of the bill is frivolous and has nothing to do with his interests. He also mentioned that he had recommended to Van Drew that that should be dropped from the bill. He and I are in agreement. We discussed the impetus of the bill. It goes back 30 years and was introduced then, but died when the representative was arrested for planting illegal drugs on his opponent during a campaign. Interesting . . . We discussed Cumberland Furnace. Although we would like a bill to address that site, the site is on private property and logistically there is little that the state would be able to regulate. So, it seems that impetus that I stated in the above post was incorrect. We then discussed geocaching. He is all for it! He said that as an archaeologist, abandoned ammo boxes would provide a unique opportunity for archaeologists of the future. I suggested that I would not relish the conclusions a future archaeologist might make about a society which leaves McDonald's toys in the woods. His POV is that sub-section b is frivoulous because there must be code elsewhere that regulates littering. He suggested to me that we research NJ code to find the definition of littering. This makes a lot of sense. Certainly, what we do is not littereing or abandoning. But let's clarify that.

I browsed the bills sponsored by a local Assemblyman the other day. I came across A1930. This bill "provides for the protection of certain publicly-owned archaeological sites and findings, and establishes penalties." This bill was drafted with the assistance of a local archeologist after Cumberland Furnace was found to be excavated illegally. The land about this site is currently being sold and there is a push to "do something about it." I applaud the effort for this is my home area. In A1930, however, is sub-section b: "No person may litter or abandon any material on State park or forest property held pursuant to the provisions of [this amendatory and supplementary act] P.L.1983, c.324 (C.13:1L-1 et seq.) ." I am concerned about that. I called Assemblyman Van Drew's office this morning and spoke with an assistant who worked on the bill. I explained my concern regarding sub-section b and indicated that I did not believe that it was needed to protect archaeological sites. I explained a little about the effects this wording may have upon geocaching (we don't abandon or litter, but others may interpret geocaching as doing that). Yes, I had to explain the game to her. She asked me to send her a letter explaining the issue and how it would affect geocaching. She will forward the concern to the Office of Legislative Services who will determine whether the wording in sub-section b would affect the game or not. If so, the bill's language can be amended. My understanding is that there is another bill, A3101/S2473, that deals with this issue. I have been unable to read that for the NJ Legislature's web site is choking on the .asp (I thought I was the last one who used .asp these days). Obviously, whatever letter I send to Assemblyman Van Drew should present geocaching well. I am open to suggestions.

That is similar to the Jersey Shore. Stone Harbor used to have the highest crime rate in NJ. If you have ever been there, you know that is skewed. Just like your OC example, the population swells during tourist season. Crime is all crime, not just violent crime. It seems that Stone Harbor used to (probably still does) have a problem with stolen bicycles. In Cape May it was drunk and disorderly. Anyhow, these ""crimes" are based on year-round populations. It is very easy to skew the rates.

I enjoyed the snow globe presentation with Signal. Cute. Happy Holidays, y'all.

Is anyone near Trinity National Forest or planning on caching there sometime soon? One of my TBs, Read All About It, is in the T.A.R. cache there. It doesn't look like this area has much caching going on right now. I would appreciate it if someone could get this one traveling again. All the best, Fro.

Yes, I do. You stated it yourself several posts back: No rule/guideline needed then. I recognize that I am not going to change your opinion or GC.com's policy. I understood that several months ago. And I will now chastise myself for jumping into the fray. As Lep just pointed out, I know why I don't participate.

So, limit the number of lame caches that can infringe upon someone else's well-placed caches. I suppose that dances out the quandary. We disagree as to whether that is a solution.

This guideline is poorly conceived. It does not satisfy the stated objective-the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. No, I do not expect GC.com to monitor each and every site to see if the caches are within .1 miles. It cannot be expected to do so. Therefore, there is no way to achieve the objective. If you can't achieve it, then why have it as a rule? Rescind it..

Well sure! That means there is only one poorly maintained gc.com cache near your private label one. Let's drag this out . . . In a park I place four well-placed caches. All are more than .1 miles from each other, labelled with contact information, etc. Each is not listed at GC.com. Then someone places four poor caches in the same park, within the .1 miles of these private label caches, but more than .1 miles from each other. These four are listed at GC.com. This park is now swarming with caches, half of which are poorly placed . . . with geocaching.com prominently stuck to the outside of each box. How is this for the betterment of the community at large?

Certainly it is not an either/or decision. Another choice is that cachers list caches on their own site. Being responsible adults we do not necessarily have to have the imprimatur of GC.com behind our caches. Some of us may actually place caches that have contact information on the cache. We might even seek permission. A good question then is how will GC.com's .1 mile rule be used. If, as it is often stated, the .1 mile rule is preserve the caching experience, what happens when someone drops a poorly-placed GC.com cache within .1 miles of already well-maintained private label caches? Are we certain GC.com rules are for the good for the geocaching community at large?

Nice job, Orange. I didn't see the One if by land cache listed. I believe that is in Morris County. Fro.

I loaded 5.12 on my MeriGold. Install went smoothly. I first experienced the arrival alarm issue as well. On subsequent use, it seems to work as intended. Issues for me . . . 1. As others have noted, setting a GOTO is cumbersome. Not only are user waypoints now second, "Cache" is first. 2. The destination line appears similar to a railroad line. I have not been able to find a way to make this a solid black line. I find it difficult to see on screen. Has anyone gotten around this? Fro.

South Jersey Must-Do THE LIBRARY AT WELLS MILLSThis is a nice little multi on beautiful trails. These are the kinds of trails that are needed everywhere. World's First all Recycled BridgeI am not certain this cache is in the same condition it was when it was first hidden. B4 it was picked over, it was the most mind-numbing find I think I have had. Cape May Point Lighthouse TrekMy old stomping grounds. Not so much a great cache, but with 119 logs, I guess it's a must-do. Poor Poor Pitiful MeApparently part one is currently missing. So close, yet so far. Nash's CabinAn easy drive up if you have the vehicle. What a fun drive! YOU STINK!One of the more challenging adventures I have had. Let's face it, any cache that takes one into the Pines or onto the beach is a good cache. There are many caches that meet those criteria.

The address is: P.O. Box 98 Millinocket Me. 04462

Congrats. Fro.

quote:Originally posted by LadeBear68:What is the NJ Lighthouse Challenge, is it just going to all the lighthouses in the area or something more? You can read about it here Fro.

njski and I had discussed doing something with that too. I doubt a virtual-multi will be approved without a physical somewhere. We were looking for a good spot at Barnegat, but thought better of it. Fro.

Congrats! I thought this one might need to be picked up, so I looked last Friday b4 I headed to the game, but there was a post it would last until the seventh inning of the final game. That is remarkable! Good job, Fro.

Today mr. njski logged #700. Pretty impressive, my friend. Fro.

Congratulations! Fro.

quote:Originally posted by Stunod:Keystone Approver gives a good summary of how this works http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=90260868&r=75360868#75360868 I understand that. If someone with 1000 logs to cache pages chooses to leave, there is not a neat and tidy way of getting out. Regenerating those pages is a time-consuming process. There is also the issue that if a person leaving has added a link to his web site to logs, that would remain. Fro.

quote:Originally posted by Prime Suspect: quote:Originally posted by Frolickin:Did you test what you proposed? No The reason I asked was because what you proposed did not work. I changed my user id. No, I was not trying to pretend to be anyone else. When I changed the user ID, every post I ever made in the fora changed. That's good. No logs changed, however. That is a huge problem for those who would want to leave. I spoke with someone about this and was told that the next time a post was made to those cache pages, the new updated information would be provided. That, however, does not make it an easy process for someone who has lots of logs to cache pages. He would either need to manually update himself or rely upon the system to work its way through after some time. For archived or highly inactive pages, that would be not happen. So, as I said earlier in this thread, I am not debating the merits of leaving. The reality is that folks leave. Rather than have them leave in a huff and create problems for those of us who remain, there should be a simple opt-out that can be applied. What you proposed could work should the cacher want/or know to take the time to edit the cache logs he has made. I take it he would not do that. Fro.

quote:Originally posted by Prime Suspect:What's stopping you from doing this yourself? Groundspeak. quote:Originally posted by Prime Suspect:Go to your caches and change the owner name to "Anonymous". Go to your profile, and change your personal info (real name, email address, etc.) to something bogus. Delete the geocaching.com bookmark from your browser. TA-DA! You don't exist anymore. Don't let the door hit you in the butt. Did you test what you proposed? [This message was edited by Prime Suspect. on September 17, 2003 at 09:37 AM.]