dogbreathcanada

Wow. Do you have like an award on your mantlepiece? Casting another stone, eh? Thanks for taking the comment out of context. I'm used to it though. Not at all. It was a specious argument you were making. If I only had 10 finds, then sure, you have experience over me. But once people hit 500 cache finds (with around 10% of those being puzzle caches and 10% of those being multi-caches), the experience factor is nearly equal. I don't really think you can gain too much more experience with 2000 caches over someone with 500 caches. The experience gain is very minor or negligible. I don't expect that I'll be much better a cacher when I hit 2000 finds than I am today with 650 finds. Of course, you can feel free to think you're a caching God (of Guru) if you want, over and above everyone else with fewer finds than you. That's your preogative. I just don't think you've gained substantially more insight than anyone else with at least 500 finds on their caching resumé.

Wow. Do you have like an award on your mantlepiece?

Be careful, you might be labeled a "ranter" too. And you're right ... Groundspeak makes the most money from a caching environment with no policies. So their input into the discussions will be that the fewer the guidelines the better. And Groundspeak doesn't need to be involved in the discussions at all. Not even their volunteers. Reviewing and listing caches is no great mystery. I'm pretty sure I could correctly answer any question Parks Canada posed on reviewing. It's not a detailed or complex process.

Congrats on the new website.

Make sure your GPSr is set to WGS84 reference system. Some of the GPSr units default to NAD83, which will generally put you 50 - 100 metres off from WGS84 (which is what geocaching.com uses).

Nice to see that they are even willing to do their own tests. Kind of pointless to do a test if you don't get caching visitors to measure impact.

To clarify: 1. I'm very happy that Parks Canada is likely going to allow geocaching in our National Parks. I'm estatic over this fact. 2. I'm quite happy with a number of the people selected for the Working Group. I'm happy with folks like Ibycus and Chillibusher being in the group. I'd be happy with Cache-Tech if he was in the group as anything other than a "volunteer of geocaching.com". I've no opinion on the others who've made some aspect of their identity known, since few of them post here, so their opinions are not well known. I have no respect for those that have decided to cloak themselves in anonymity (only you know who you are). 3. I've no desire to sabotage the project. I simply want to see it open and transparent, for all Canadian geocachers. 4. I'm unhappy that this process is being treated as though it were being managed by CSIS. The secrecy is untenable. 5. I'm unhappy that some of the selected Working Group, who are effectively representing all Canadian geocachers, have decided that they should remain anonymous and that they can effectively represent Canadians in anonymity. They can't. Nor should they. They should be removed from the process without question. 6. I'm unhappy that all discussion on this issue has to take place here, under the yoke of geocaching.com administration and moderation. I'd rather some organization set up a forum where Canadians can freely discuss the issue. There are Canadian geocachers who have been banned from geocaching.com. They're opinions should be heard as well, as they are Canadian and they are geocachers, and this Working Group does represent them as well (even if geocaching.com would rather no one represent them.) I'd offer such a locale for discussion at the LMGA, but considering my reputation, such a forum would be better served and hosted by an organization with a more neutral membership. (Can the Calgary Cachers offer up a forum?) I know a couple of people who have problems with Blue Quasar's participation in the process, but nobody would ever dare voice those grievances here, no matter how valid they are, because the Groundspeak "ban hammer" would come down hard, which is a good example of why a neutral website for discussion is required. 7. I'll continue to fight the good fight until I am convinced that Canadian geocachers are being served and represented in this process appropriately and democratically.

Are these seminars going to be located anywhere other than Ontario? Is Parks Canada making any accomodations for members of the working group living outside of Ottawa? Or is this information still considered state secrets?

Ah, but you would not be able to do that would you. You would have to shut up. Thanks for the mudslinging. I wouldn't have expected you to take the thread down a few notches. Nice personal attack. I guess it was to be expected that someone would start into the personal attacks eventually. I wouldn't have expected it to be a gc.com reviewer though. I love it when Americans butt in on Canadian discussions. For a company that claims to have no say or input on the Parks Canada discussions, there are a lot of you American Groundspeakers in here. And for the record, I'm not adding my two cents to any of the US National Park discussions. Because that's an American matter. It's none of my business. Comprende?

You mean the PitA solution. The simple solution would have been for you to disable the cache (a few mouse clicks, that's how simple it would have been), and post a note instructing the cache owner to remove the seeds. Sure, someone could have made a trade for the seeds. But what happens when cache owner replaces them, do we have to go back to make another trade, and another trade, and another trade. Not all that simple in the long run, is it. More like a pain in the butt. Dude, we're not Iraq. Don't assume you know what's best for us as well.

How can you be so sure? What exactly do you know about the 12 or so people on the Working Group? What do you know about their opinions on caching in our national parks? Sure there are a few good people on the group, we know that much, but will their voice be heard above the few bad people that are likely there as well?

The "Needs Maintenance" log type is not an available option on disabled caches.

The fifth anniversary came and went on Feb 02 2006 for BC's first cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f7-0700ba338b00

Is this what its all about? It seems to me that you should be arguing policy, not personality, and take policy decisons on their own merit. It's about opening the process. One of the people in the Working Group so far wishes to remain completely anonymous. This person though is representing Canadian geocachers in helping to create a Parks Canada geocaching policy. Top represent us, their identity should be known. I don't really care what form that identity takes, whether it's just their gc.com username, their real name, or an email address. The identity should be a method by which others can contact them and through which their views and opinions can be made known. I'll take policy decisions on their own merit, but I think it's incumbent upon the process that everyone know who is behind those decisions.

The "final report on geocaching comments/rapport final des commentaires -geocaching" email from Parks Canada just arrived. Time to go look at the PDFs. ---- You have valid points, Jeremy. Yeah, I know smaller groups get more done than larger groups, but there are methods in which to present ideas to the large passive group to get their input such that they don't impact the productivity of the smaller active group. Yeah, I but I don't know how to argue any other way. The tone is forceful, for sure, but I don't wish to sabotage anything. I just wish for the process not to become insular and restrictive. We'll see if this mystery member of the working group comes forward with an identity. If (s)he does, then we'll wait to see what happens after these workgroups Ibycus mentioned. If (s)he does not come forward, then we'll have to take other steps to open the process.

Dude, I don't even know why you're in this discussion. If Groundspeak as no stake in the issue, as you say, then you should have no opinion on the discussion either way. But, since you're here and asking questions ... I know full well what these people are trying to accomplish. I congratulate those who've made themselves known on the service they will offer Canadian geocachers. What I object to is the process. And the closed-nature of it. There is no transparency, and with every succeeding note from this working group I see more levels of opacity added to the proceedings (i.e. our "rough drafts" aren't fit for public consumption; I guess they're protecting us from ourselves). And this is EXACTLY the place to "carp" about it, since this is the only location in which to contact the working group ... there is no other simple method in which to communicate with them en masse.

Only the "final drafts" are fit for public consumption, when it's too late to make changes? At what stage are the drafts leading to final policy open to public scrutiny (if at all)?

You shouldn't carp on other people taking the initiative when you don't. Color yourself lucky that other people are willing to do the work that others are not. You should stop defending the indefensible. You know what he's guilty of. Why you keep defending him is beyond a whole lot of us.

I'm satisfied with valid gc.com (or other website) identities. Some way in which to contact the representatives to understand their views and positions. I don't require real names or email addresses. And yes, some form of contact info so that ANYONE can communicate with these people. As is your right where government policy is concerned.

That's complete B.S. and that person should be removed from the process. You can't represent Canadians anonymously. I will continue to raise a stink about this. And in three weeks when Claire returns, I shall bring it up again. This will not be a closed door process, if I have anything at all to do with it. I will do everything I can to ensure this is an open and transparent process. I'll draft up a letter shortly that people can email to their MPs about this policy process, with regard to its closed-door nature and the fact that an American corporation is being represented in the proceedings. The latter issue should get the attention of the MP, and that's what's wanted ... until such time that the process is opened up to the public.

What exactly is a cache exchange? If I had to guess, I'd say two people mail each other caches that reflect their home territory, each person then places the other person's cache. Am I on the right track?

It gives the cache a special "Needs Maintenance" attribute icon. Nothing shows up anywhere else, other than on the cache page itself.

If you want caches with short nice hikes and great views, then make sure to find accomodations on the North Shore (North Vancouver or West Vancouver). Almost all the caches on the North Shore supply either one or the other or both of your criteria.

Dogbreath, I think you have missed the complete point of this. Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc. Also,from what I see no member asked to be on this. Just the opposite, they were invited by Parks Canada. If you wanted to be on the group or wanted someone else the time for that was during the public consultation phase. We are passed that point. First of all, Parks Canada is a government institution. It's not a private corporation. In the end, it's responsible to all Canadians. To ask that it conducts its processes in an open and transparent manner is certainly not asking much. Actually, it's only asking the obvious. Secondly, it wasn't made clear during the public consultation that there would ever be a working group formed. If there had been that expectation, I certainly would have offered up some names. Thirdly, the representation across Canada is a little uneven. Alberta has two representatives? Yet BC only has one? Did you know that Victoria is the most cache dense city in Canada? Why weren't they offered any representation? Why does Ontario, probably having the highest number of cachers in any province, only have a single rep? The moment I learned about this Working Group, I emailed Claire and suggested she offer one of the LMGA website administrators a seat on the Working Group, since he has 20 years of forestry experience, both with the government and as a forestry consultant. She, unfortunately, declined. Fourth, reviewing procedures at geocaching.com are no particular mystery. There's a publically available set of guidelines they follow. From what I've seen, and from what questions I've asked (and had answered), there's no special qualifications necessary to review and post listings on this site. I'm sure it would take me less than 30 minutes to be able to review as well as any other reviewer here at geocaching.com. It's certainly not rocket science.

I'm in favour of B. But that has nothing to do with the make-up of the so-called Working Group. And my choice of B as no bearing on my calls for openness and transparency in the process, of which so far it's been closed and opaque. Apparently you can be on the Working Group and remain completely anonymous, even though your opinions will influence caching for all Canadians. I'll continue to complain about the process until it is both open and transparent. But since Claire is on vacation for three weeks, there's no point continuing until the process resumes.