greykitties

Did you get a response from the reviewer? I got a response that said 'it's not the permit...it's the personal information'. Problem is they are basically one and the same. Again, part of the issue with all this is that Groundspeak has not come out with this in writing to the public, even though they updated their guidelines AFTER all this happened. One has to wonder why...

This is an excerpt from the denial: "...this kind of permit system will not be allowed in the future, although it will be honored and grandfathered on existing caches ..." Since this has not been published as a guideline yet (at least I could not find it in the Feb 11 version of the guidelines) it is kind of hard to tell for sure. What I get is that they are against the possible collection (the word harvesting was used) of personal information from a permit. One comment was made about this not being a government organization, and that seemed to make it more objectional. Since my own identity theft problems have stemmed from the federal government I don't see that it being a non-governmental oragization makes it worse! When the recent Virginia State Park caches were published (after all this happened) I questioned the reviewer. You have to pay a fee to enter- that is obtaining a PERMIT to park. Without that permit they would ticket you, and they have the ability through databases obtain all sorts of personal information then!! So, just by entering the property, you are subject to disclosure of personal information. If I CHOSE to pay with a check there would be personal information that could be harvested too. Of course, let me make it clear- I think that the VSP caches should be allowed, as should the DRHT caches. The cacher needs to decide for themselves if they wish to take any and all risks to seek a particular cache. If you want to see something interestering check out offline.cacher's page with all the known parks and locales that require permits to PLACE a cache. What is the difference between placing and seeking??? Ya got me!

Here is the 'appeal' and 'response' from Groundspeak. I will not include all the back and forth before it got to that point. So, without further edification here you go: My 'Appeal': HI, I am glad to hear from you. I have taken quite a bit of time to mull over what you had to say, and would like for you to consider the following... First, the caches on the trail were not 'published in good faith'. I think it's only fair to call it what it is- they were published as agreed upon over four years ago. We asked the landowner if we could make up a 'one day' pass that could be printed from the cache listing. He did not want to do that, so this was the agreed upon route, done with agreement by Dot Plotter. Second, it does sound like you are saying 'no providing on information', period, which is MUCH better than what honeychile originally said. She seemed to think that putting such information in the hands of a governmental organization would be safer vs a private company! NOT- I have had an identity theft issue, which was BECAUSE of the US government! That being said, if you are not going to allow cachers to provide information to SEEK a cache, then should you be allowing cachers to provide information to HIDE a cache?? The same requirement for putting your personal information out there is at issue. If you are trying to 'protect us from ourselves' (as in protect us from the ability to CHOOSE to provide PII to others) then it should cut both ways…. Of course your problem would be that saying you can't fill out a permit for placing a cache would cut out an awful lot of parks which REQUIRE a permit to place a cache. But, why is it OK to require a permit to place a cache, but not to seek one? Reference Off Limit Physical Cache: If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page On another note, if you are doing this to 'protect us from ourselves' cachers must make decisions on a daily basis that may put us in harms way. (Have you ever heard the saying 'It must have been a good day caching- I drew blood') As you can see giving out information, sticking my hand somewhere, walking through the weeds that might contain ticks, even driving to a cache, are all potentially dangerous decisions that I as an individual (and particularly as an American, although I realize caching is international) should be allowed to make for myself. You say that you cannot be required to access another website if required to create an account or provide PII. However, you have already required us to log into a website, Geocaching.com and provide information to you. This was a risk too. So, is it OK to take that risk with Groundspeak, but not with others? I am sure you are painfully aware that geocaching.com can be hacked just as easily as other sites, so by collecting (harvesting??) information you are also opening cachers up to risk. Beyond that you specifically require going to another website (although related) to accomplish Wherigo caches. If I choose to persue these caches I have to not only log into another site, I have to download something that might contain malicious code! Here again, if it is a risk to provide information it should cut both ways. How can you prohibit going to another site on the one hand and then require it on the other. References: Wherigo caches The cartridges must reside at Wherigo.com. Third On the subject of harvesting (as referred to in a previous email). I feel that there is a HUGE difference between collecting information online and collecting it in the 'real world'. We as a society are just coming to grips with this dilemma. I think that using this term 'harvesting' is inflammatory, and inappropriate. This land owner has chosen to issue permits to lawfully grant permission to be on his property, not to 'harvest' information. I can attest that I have had no further contact as a result of applying for my permit. Fourth, in my opinion, obtaining this permit is simply a way of making these caches legitimate and above board. As one example think about all the LPCs in Walmart or Food Lion parking lots. We generally know that permission was NOT obtained for the vast majority of those. Also most of those locations have posted somewhere on the property that the property is for the use of customers only (at least that's the way it is here in Virginia). Thus, if you are not buying some milk at Food Lion, you should not be on the property, and are technically trespassing. With these trail caches you are being granted explicit permission to be on the property. Isn't that better? Next, my cache does not seem to conflict with this new requirement, unless the wording is changed, since one only has to visit the indicated website, not register or create an account or provide personal information to the website. Reference: Guidelines that apply to all cache types-Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website. I do not feel that these caches are in direct violation of any of the written guidelines, as stated above, but even if they are, by the following reference, it would seem that they could still be allowed: Guidelines that apply to all cache types: Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you wanted to you could 'grant an exception', you could do so based on the merits of the caches. King George county has VERY limited resources. There is not much public property, there is not much commercial development, even the roads are not amenable to placing caches. Most are only two lanes, with no shoulders. This trail is one of a very limited number of places that caches can actually be placed in the county. That is why I went to the effort to find an agreed on way to handle these caches four years ago. I would certainly agree if you said that they needed to be a 5 star terrain because they require special equipment even if they were allowed on their merits. One additional issue, is that I think this new 'guideline' was created without thoroughly considering the consequences. By saying you can't seek a cache that requires a permit there are lots of additional places that need to be disallowed. For example last weekend we did a cache in Leesylvania State Park. You have to obtain a 'permit' in order to park there. A parking permit, or an admission fee is a 'permit'. You do end up providing PII, if you can/do pay with a credit card. If the location takes your license plate number you provide PII If you go somewhere that wants you to put a 'permit' in your car window ( which honeychile said was permissible)- you could be providing PII, if your name, phone number, POC etc. is requested. I think this new/reworded guideline, needs to be reevaluated. Basically all a permit actually does is make everything totally legal and above board, which is more than can probably be said for the vast majority of caches out there!!! If a cacher does not feel comfortable they can skip the cache, just as a cacher who is afraid of heights could choose to skip a cache that made them feel uncomfortable. I request that you review all of this information and reconsider these caches and allowing caches on this trail in general as I believe they have merit. I don't recall anyone objecting to obtaining a permit, but I do recall lots of positive comments about the trail caches which currently exist. I feel like these caches have great merit and are worthy of being published, even if it is under an exception to this new guideline. Therefore, I would request that caches be allowed on this trail, and that these two caches be allowed to be published, with the modification of a higher terrain rating if necessary, in order to acknowledge the permit requirement. I believe the local caching community would appreciate the quality caches that you can find on this trail being allowed to continue and grow. Thanks for your time in reviewing this situation, Their 'Response': I understand the comments in your message of February 7 and do not agree with them. The caches placed under the earlier arrangement can be allowed to stay, even though such an arrangement would not be permitted today. We will not publish cache pages where persons seeking the cache must provide their personal information to a third party. That's our final answer.

BTW- I was not going to do this, but if the general population wants me to I will post a copy of my 'appeal' and the GS 'response'. It more throughly covers my arguments.

Ok- to address some peoples comments- I have appealed to GS, not just the reviewer. I read the guidelines throughly, the rule 'no permits to seek a cache' is not there. I think it was just made up, and even though this 'decision' was made over a month ago, the new guideline has yet to be published. BREAKING NEWS: I just went to grab a quote from the guidelines, and I discovered that the guidelines have been updated *today*. However, reading through them again (with their new linked format- which makes it harder to get the whole picture BTW) I STILL don't see any reference to 'no permits to seek a cache' although I see this wording seems to have been removed: Reference Off Limit Physical Cache: If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page So, it look like: -The guideline disallowing permits to seek a cache has still not been published -the obvious descrepancy of NOT allowing permits to SEEK a cache while allowing them to HIDE a cache is being hidden. Also unless I missed it- they seem to have removed the paragraph that encouraged people to bring issues like this to the forums!!!

Here is a link to one of the caches: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1c2ac9ba-e0b0-4b54-a033-c814efca9a56

No cache owner can control seekers and if they break the rules or not!! That was not really GSs objection anyway. Seems to me like ANY cache could invite trouble...

Not really much else to the story, if you apply for a permit anyone may access the location. This is a potential 'rail-to-trail' site, so there is no check point or control. The cache writeups always made it very clear you you needed to obtain a permit, I can't control if people went without one (as no COs can control if someone enters any location when not allowed, like after hours). Caching was explained to the landowner and he agreed to this process. In getting a permit one of the things that is made brought to your attention is no trespassing OFF the trail on all the adjacent land, this is the case for geocaching, hiking, biking or anything else on the trail. I do have other reasons I think their disallowing this is wrong, but the biggest reason is I should be able to decide for myself (at least those of us here in America expect this!), and I think they have a double standard.

The guidelines say to bring issues to the forums and maybe Groundspeak will modify their stance, so here goes. I recently tried to put out some new caches on a trail that I have been putting caches on for four years. In order to hike this trail you have to obtain a permit which you have to send away for. All of a sudden this is apparently not allowed, even though it was negotiated as agreeable four years ago. The problem seems to stem from the possability of identity theft. Now, I am a serious privacy advocate, having had an identity theft issue in the past. But I think *I* should be allowed to determine if I am willing to 'take the risk' to provide information for a permit just as *I* determine if I am going to take any other risk involved in Geocaching. One of my biggest objection is that while they are forbidding the obtaining permits to SEARCH for a cache, they are allowing the obtaining of permits to PLACE a cache. Isn't this a double standard? What do you think? Do you think GS should allow us to make our own decisions? Do you think they are being fair in allowing this in one case and not in another? (and I realize the ramifications of saying you can't have to obtain a permit to place a cache!)

Yes, I got mine yesterday and they were very, very nice. And it's not just because I'm her sister I'm saying so!! Hope everyone else likes theirs as much as I do.

I am trying to find a cache that I came across several months ago. I thought it sounded neat, and thought I would do it one day when I was in the vicinity. Wouldn't you know it, now I can't find it for the life of me. I don't know the name, and can't seem to find it by location, but if I could search the text (cache write up and especially the comments) I KNOW a key word that would work. Is there any chance of getting a search on the entire text added as a feature? Or am I the only one who wants this?