dogbreathcanada

Log before that = FOUND IT 2 before that = FOUND IT Would it be acceptible for ME to post a NEEDS MAINTENANCE log? I found this cache over two years ago, the owner is active still... but not one person actually posted a NM note. I think it would be the responsible thing to do, for future seekers, but what do you think. Link to the cache Ball's Falls The Blue Quasar I've done it. So, obviously, it is acceptable.

Sorry, but I'm fresh out of tissues. What exactly was so wrong with my original query? I wanted to know who all the regional representatives were, as well as the geocaching.com representatives. That you made it out to be a secret club was bound to raise a few hackles, not too mention the question of geocaching.com's participation (which you've mostly cleared up.) The position you accepted means you'd better be prepared for the roses as well as the thorns. Heck, man, as a reviewer at gc.com, you should know that better than most.

If the workgroup wasn't even finalised, then you made a mistake posting about it in the first place. Don't blame me for asking the obvious questions. You post about a working group, I can only assume that the working group is all in order. I don't read minds. So letting it known that a workgroup was being developed and the following associations/groups are involved was a mistake? Where is this spin coming from C-T? The original post stated the following: "The group is now in the process of collecting and reviewing relevant existing policies (over 50 exist worldwide), reviewing the public comments (anonymously -- personal information has been removed from the documents), and preparing for discussions with a Parks Canada team (selected for their interest in Geocaching)." It states The group is now in the process of collecting ..., which suggests a fully formed group. Not a group in the process of being created. Again, if the group wasn't fully formed, then it was a mistake to post what was announced, with wording that suggested that the group's composition was complete.

Well, you represent geocaching.com (as per Claire's list), so no, you don't represent me, you represent corporate interests in Seattle. Chillibusher is my Canadian regional representative.

If the workgroup wasn't even finalised, then you made a mistake posting about it in the first place. Don't blame me for asking the obvious questions. You post about a working group, I can only assume that the working group is all in order. I don't read minds. Except that Claire broke the working group down into regions (as well as geocaching.com), so whereas you may not view the group as having regional representation, she certainly does. This is a direct quote from another email I received today from Claire: "The selected members are aware that they can't just bring their personal perspective to the table, as there is a broader constituency beyond themselves and their own association." That is called representation, ensuring you represent your broader constituency.

I'm sorry, but that's not an option. You can't represent Canadians behind the veil of anonymity. These people accepted a position to represent their regions and Canadians, they don't get to hide their identities as well. People need to know who they are so that they can be contacted and ideas/problems can be discussed. That's how representation works.

Contacted Claire and received a complete list (except for Maritimes and Quebec, since she has been unable to contact those reps) of all the people in the working group. Surprising the level of secrecy going on here. I knew if I emailed Claire I'd get the answers I wanted. Open and transparent, that's what the process is supposed to be. Thankfully she agrees. Perhaps she chose some of the wrong people for this working group, considering how they view their role in the process. Anyone want a copy of the rep list, just email me. Or head to the LMGA (http://lmga.net) website. I'll post the list there.

Where Canadian parks are concerned, when a cacher brings up a legitimate environmental concern, a reviewer should disable the cache immediately until the matter is resolved. In the matter of the seeds cache, I stated that planting foreign seeds in a provincial park was against the park act. I didn't have the exact section/subsection on hand, but the reviewer could have disabled the cache until all that information could be found. Most of us who do anything out in the wilderness are intimately aware of the dangers of introducing foreign species into certain environments and the measures that our parks services take to try to prevent it. Thus, even though I didn't have the chapter and verse of the regulations straight at the time of my complaint, my complaint was certainly legitimate enough to warrant a cache disabling until all information could be sought. Now this policy will go doubly when a Parks Canada policy is brought down. It would be unreasonable to expect the reviewers to know every detail of every national park, especially the trail systems. If the Parks Canada policy states that no cache shall be more than 4 metres from a trail, and someone finds a cache that is 100 metres off trail, then the cache should be disabled until further investigation proves or disproves the claim. This also works for ecologically sensitive areas, as well. We can't expect a reviewer to know them all (and sometimes they change), thus the community helps in this regard. To show good faith to Parks Canada, the geocaching.com reviewers are going to have to err on the side of caution when problems are brought to their attention by the community.

Yes, but if we have to question and second guess the cache placer is lying about obtained permission for the cache, then we have a long drawn out process and a number of insulted upset cachers. Required permissions are the responsibility of the cache placer and unless we know of other steps, policies or laws, we have to take the cache placer at their word. You know as well as I do, if we go to the other side of the scale here, there would be those complaining it is their cache and they told us they had permission and that should be enough. I very much doubt that ANY discussion of permission took place at all with that cache. You know, as well as I know, that getting permission from a provincial (or national) park for anything is a long drawn out affair. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&log=y&decrypt= That you're now asking for proof of permission from cachers in your reviewing area is a good step (and what you should be doing), but I doubt that's the modus operandi of many of the reviewers. There's no reason at all to trust a cache owner, unless they've already demonstrated their trustworthiness previously. A new cache owner should not be implicitly trusted off the get go. Trust is earned. If I placed a cache that required permission and my reviewer wanted proof of that permission, I'd be happy to give it to him. It wouldn't be a bother at all, since I went through the problem and headache of getting that permission in the first place, the extra step with Groundspeak would be no added hassle.

Oh, that cache. That was here in BC. Golden Ears Provincial Park. I was the one that brought it up in the forums. Your recollection of the event is accurate. That cache was eventually stolen by another local cacher (not me, even though a few people blamed me for it) since geocaching.com had no intentions of shutting it down. I had to email our provincial park rep and get his opinion on the matter and ask that he quote the necessary regulation from the Parks Act. He did and I posted the information, and the reviewer eventually archived that cache, but by then it was already stolen and disabled. Kind of sad that the only way to protect our standing with our provincial park service was for someone to take matters into their own hands, since geocaching.com wasn't really interested in the issue beyond their broad set of guidelines. Common sense was all that was required. Being a reviewer doesn't necessarily grant you that. (Our reviewer, for the most part, is excellent, but obviously it is too easy to be blinded by geocaching.com's guidelines, the allow any cache if it fits OUR criteria mentality.)

What does that mean? You've supplied the bare minimum of information asked for, so you've fulfilled your duty to Canadian geocachers? This whole process is a little too secretive for my tastes. Sounds like people are a little too concerned that they were "picked" by Parks Canada and are protecting their "status" in these discussions. Yay for the democratic process! What further detail concerning the Geocaching.com volunteers did you want? You asked who and I provided who. I have no idea. You're the one who added the "I am not going into further details" sentence, as if you've been put out supplying the information you did. As if we're not really entitled to the information you did supply. I wouldn't have said anything further if you'd just supplied the names and left it at that, but you went a step further in your comments, which raised my eyebrows, at any rate.

I think you may be wrong. I believe a number of the groups involved in the discussions are NOT registered associations or societies. The Calgary Area Cachers, for instance, I'm fairly positive is nothing more than a loose knit group of Calgary area cachers (as their name states.)

Join the club/clique? I think not. It's a closed group and the directors treat the organization as a closed group. A local cacher offered his services when a new director was needed. At their Extraordinary Meeting they spent most of their time badmouthing this individual, and then brought in a new director from within their ranks. I'd rather eat nails than get involved with the BCGA, thank you very much. Unfortunately, the LMGA is a little late on the scene.

What does that mean? You've supplied the bare minimum of information asked for, so you've fulfilled your duty to Canadian geocachers? This whole process is a little too secretive for my tastes. Sounds like people are a little too concerned that they were "picked" by Parks Canada and are protecting their "status" in these discussions. Yay for the democratic process!

This sounds more like a local or regional issue, no? Besides, as we all saw recently in Utah, Groundspeak doesn't discuss reviewers quiting, taking time off, or getting fired, unless the reviewer themself brings it up first. I don't know what happened in Utah. But if Groundspeak is to remain mum on the issue, then I'll drop it. I noticed about a month ago that he was no longer reviewing his normal territory. And recently he's made some surprising comments that were a complete about face from previous viewpoints he's held. It's all been pointing towards a dismissal from Groundspeak. Not too mention the rumour that Half-Canadian and Scooter the Wonder Dog were recently given reviewer status (or so that rumour goes as well). Who doesn't love the rumour mill?

There's a rumour going around that Cache-Advance has been removed from reviewing duties with gc.com? Is this true? Judging by who's been approving the caches lately in Cache-Advance's normal reviewing area, it would seem that there's some merit to the rumour.

Does one have to pay the BCGA membership fee before they can be heard? Just curious, because so much of the BCGA website seems to be locked down to non-members. Other than that, I'm cool with your representation. You've got the best interests of the hobby at heart.

Where? I don't see a list of of these "volunteers of geocaching.com"? All I see is that cache-tech admitted to being one of the volunteers. I'd simply like to know who the rest of the volunteers are. Is that so unreasonable a request?

Apparently we should find a website not under the thumb of geocaching.com, since they apparently will conduct how discussions on the topic will proceed here. I still want to know, cache-tech, who the "volunteers of geocaching.com" are? I think we're all entitled to that information. If they're representing Canadians, as you claim, then their identities (their geocaching.com handles are sufficient) should be released. If they're representing geocaching.com (as I fear), then by all means keep those identities anonymous.

The LMGA is already doing this. Their procedure is to try to ensure an adoption first, before looking at archival. Adoption has the highest priority in a cache rescue. One cache has already been rescued, and another is under discussion. http://lmga.net

I have no problem with that at all. Canadian geocachers should represent all of us. I have the following problems: 1. Any involvement by geocaching.com. As long as some of the people in the process refer to themselves as "of geocaching.com" then, as far as I'm concerned, geocaching.com is a part of the process. 2. Full disclosure on who OUR representatives are. I've been informed that a number of OUR representatives want to remain anonymous, thus the reason why no list of individuals has been released. That's a bunch of 'carp', if you want to represent Canadians, then you have to make yourself known so that we know what sorts of opinions are entering the proceedings.

Very good points. I remember that cache. I was following the situation quite closely. Quite the debacle. That was a situation where a reviewer decided he would override Parks Canada's interim policy because he could see no harm in approving a cache in the spot it was hidden at, even though that spot was deep inside a national park. That was certainly a case where the cache should have been disabled until the "black and white" law came forward. Err on the side of caution. That's certainly not the kind of attitude that should be directing these proceedings.

The "who" is not listed above, only the organizations are listed. Since you requested that I contact specific organizations to find out who is specifically involved, I did just that -- in a previous post in this thread I asked who these "volunteers from geocaching.com" are. You've yet to answer. Who are the "volunteers from geocaching.com" that are involved? Obviously you're one of them, but you did use the plural, so I'm assuming there is more than one.

The representation happens the moment someone enters the policy discussion claiming to have a current relationship with Groundspeak. There are a number of "volunteers of geocaching.com" present in the discussions. That has the appearance of representation at some level. As for guidelines. You don't need a reviewer to present the cache guidelines to Parks Canada. We all have access to the geocaching.com guidelines. Anyone can present them. As well, I wouldn't want a policy created that reflects only the guidelines of geocaching.com. There are other caching organizations out there, each of which have different guidelines and rules. There's no guarantee that Groundspeak will retain their monopoly on the hobby. A policy shouldn't be designed that accomodates the procedures and/or guidelines of any one organization. A policy should be designed that is generic enough that it will fit any organization, present or future.

I am a volunteer for Geocaching.com and I am Canadian, the volunteer reviewers are the only ones involved that is directly involved with Geocaching.com besides the cachers whom list their caches on Geocaching.com with Parks Canada and we are all Canadian. I see no problem with this involvement, the issue is for Canadians and it is only Canadians involved in working out a policy. Except that you specifically stated that you're representing geocaching.com (i.e. Groundspeak). Doesn't matter if you're Canadian or Lithuanian, you've stated a representation for an American for-profit corporation in a Canadian government matter. Since you've stated that you're representing Groundspeak in this Canadian parks policy decision, then exactly what instructions has Groundspeak given you per this representation? What are the aims of this representation? What policy issues are acceptable to Groundspeak and what are not? What are you allowed or not allowed to do in these talks with respect to this representation? Groundspeak must be concerned with its image, so I'd find it hard to believe that some set of guidelines wasn't given to their representatives with regards the Parks Canada situation. This is a neutral post (i.e. neither negative or positive). I'm just looking for full disclosure on exactly how this representation is affecting any policy decisions that Parks Canada may make. (I could just ask the Parks Canada representative myself what sort of demands Groundspeak may or may not be making in the policy process, but that would be creating waves where none are currently necessary. I'd rather hear it from the representatives themselves how their relationship with Groundspeak is affecting the process. Since you're claiming a connection with Groundspeak, you must be involved in the process differently than a private citizen would be.) Thanks for any light you can shed on these questions.