davidelentz

I did furnish the same ownership evidence to the reviewer that I have posted on this thread. In addition, I forwarded an email from the Tytoona Cave Preserve manager dated 9/13/11 in which I specifically asked if NSS had purchased the Arch Spring property. His answer was no. If the reviewer had contacted me prior to her archival of the listing, I would have agreed to remove any and all references to the NSS property. We do pay geocaching.com for services. They provide them at terms which I presume we agree to by clicking, "I agree..." Thus far, we have enjoyed unrestricted freedom of speech in this discussion. I do fear that may be placed in jeopardy by whatever terms may be in the agreement between NSS, GSA and geocaching.com. My EarthCache notwithstanding, I hope to survive this discussion with both my freedom of speech and my membership to geocaching.com intact. I reference the 203 EC listings linked at the bottom of the most recent post by Mannville Possum Hunters.

I agree that the post by geodarts is particularly astute. It demonstrates a thorough study of the posts on this forum, the archived listing and the website of Tytoona Cave Preserve. Your vast experience in geocaching shines through as well. Bravo! The reviewer is between a rock and a hard place, however. Geocaching.com does not have the resources to investigate the legitimacy of land ownership claims. I know from experience that a single property boundary dispute case will often last five to ten years and cost each party five to ten thousand dollars per year in legal fees. Most of these cases are dropped before they ever go to trial because one or both parties run out of money. Imagine the scale at which geocaching.com could get involved if they chose to validate all claims of land ownership, legitimate or otherwise. The simple and in fact, only solution for such an organisation is to archive ANY listing if ANYBODY complains. I certainly appreciate all who have showed me their support in this issue. We all need to be realistic, however. Geocaching.com is not going to back CO's in any property ownership disputes. I would advise NSS the same as any clients that I perform land surveys for: Build a fence around the property that you actually own. Post it NO TRESPASSING. Stay off the land that you do not own. Respect the rights of others. Do not restict the legal use of public rights of way. The weekend draws near and I have an EarthCache to develop. Take care, Dave Lentz

I do not believe that the reviewer should accept any liability for posting the coordinates of Tytoona Cave when it is eight tenths of a mile from the posted coordinates of Arch Spring, the feature of the EarthCache. I agree with others who have posted on this thread that the issue arose from a fraudulent complaint. I appreciate the reviewer amending the reason for archival. The original archival note read that the EC had been archived "at the owner's request." I asked that the note be amended to read "due to environmental issues." The original note implied that I had placed an EC on NSS property without permission. As a licensed and practicing land surveyor the original note was potentially defamatory since it implied that I was not able to determine basic property boundaries. I am unclear, however, how my request for amendment of the archival note was spun into a lecture on obtaining permission of landowners.

See below.

In fact, the coordinates of the EC are on a bridge owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from which Arch Spring, owned by a neighbor of NSS is to be viewed without physical access. Perhaps an easier example for some to understand might be GCMH1C, "Table Rock EarthCache." The logging requirements of this EC include viewing the Canadian Horseshoe Falls from a distance. I am, however, fascinated by the prospect of following Arch Spring downstream toward the Atlantic Ocean until reaching an acceptable distance from the NSS 6.8 acres to develop another EarchCache.

Had there been a change in the official policy, I would expect there to be no delay in updating the web site. If no update had been made, I suspect a trespassing claim would not be enforceable. Is it possible that the complaintant is creating a new set of regulations for members of geocaching.com and earthcache.org? Why does the access policy detailed on the Preserve's website differ from that which is implied by the complaint? http://www.caves.org/preserves/tcp/mp-tcp.html Would I be reasonable to expect a retractment of the complaint if the official website is not amended accordingly?

In discussion of the various issues arising from this archival, I wonder how many followers of this thread have by now realised that those who had ventured beyond my EarthCache and entered into the cave had in fact, done so in accordance with the rules posted in the Tytoona Cave Preserve land use policy? http://www.caves.org/preserves/tcp/mp-tcp.html

I just finished reviewing the "access policy" section of the management plan for the Tytoona Cave Nature Preserve both on their website and from the printed brochure that is available at their on-site kiosk. http://www.caves.org/preserves/tcp/mp-tcp.html I would suggest that anyone following this thread do the same. I believe the access policy does a good job of defining what activities the public is allowed to engage in on the NSS property. Where things seem to get fuzzy is exactly what activities the public is allowed to engage in outside of the NSS property.

It is curious that the complaint implies that the cave is off limits to the public. The Tytoona Cave Preserve's website goes as far as to post public visitation hours. Although the name of the complaintant has been withheld, it brings into question his or her actual knowledge of the Preserve's rules and regulations. I further question what right this individual might have to request that discussion or reference to the Preserve be removed from this website. I have recently offered to donate to the local chapter an extensive collection of photographs that I have made of the many unique formations within the cave system. These photographs were collected on diving expeditions that I made into the cave system several years prior to NSS acquisition of the property. As far as I know, this donation has been cordially accepted by the Preserve Manager. I would suggest at this time that reference to the NSS property be removed from the EarthCache listing and the listing be reactivated describing only the Arch Spring resurgence which by the admission of NSS is not their property.

As the CO, I am least concerned by the use of a fraudulent ownership claim to get the EarthCache archived. I am somewhat more concerned by the attempt to restrict the use of the public roadway from which the spring is routinely viewed. Most disturbing, however, is the attempt to attack fundamental freedom of speech.

In the fourth paragraph of the Preserve's web site it is stated quite clearly that NSS does not own Arch Spring: http://www.caves.org/preserves/tcp/tytoona.html This information was provided to the reviewer in addition to an email from the manager of the Preserve verifying that Arch Spring is not NSS property. Several of the points made in the complaint are bold faced lies.

I am taking this opportunity to clarify several points regarding this issue. 1. The NSS does not own the property upon which the EarthCache was located. They own the property next door. 2. The complaint made to the reviewer stated falsely that NSS was the landowner. 3. It was stated in the EarthCache listing that visiting the NSS property was in no way a part of the logging requirements. 4. The NSS property is open to the general public.