Team OUTSID4EVR

I'm posting a "heads-up" in the forums here to announce the Mill Mountain GeoCamp-out. You can read about it by followingthis link. This is a backpacking trip to a neat area of George Washington National Forest. This will require a moderately strenuous hike. The nearest town is Wardensville, WV. The date is June 14th and 15th. If you are interested, leave a note on the cache info page. We could carpool from Baltimore, if there are folks coming from PA, DE, NJ, etc... You can use this forum to stay informed.s [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on May 09, 2003 at 07:55 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by TAT:Brown Mule: quote:Geocaching.com policy says to contact the public lands agency to acquire about their rules on Geocaching. Perhaps geocaching.com intended to specifically ask about geocaching, but that is not what the words say. If I get a complete set of park rules and geocaching is not listed, then it is allowed. This is a rather strict interpretation. Is it the best practice for geocacing.com? What would you do in my situation? Would you ask for the rules or would you specifically ask about geocching? I would let sleeping dogs lie. Place your cache. I too use the same interpretation. If they have a position on geocaching, I abide by their rules. If there is no policy, I'm not going to force the issue.

I'm also glad to see an honest discussion of the permission issue. Here in MD, we have a system in place at the state level. My cache placed in Tuckahoe State park was approved by the state DNR. I'm leaning toward Criminal and BrianSnat's side. If there's a policy in place, follow it. I'm sure the other park managers where my caches are placed know of their existance. My Ivy Hill cache has been in place since April 2001. There have been no problems as a result of its placement. They have not developed a policy on geocaches. The cache owner is responsible for the cache that he/she places. If a land manager were to contact me concerning one of my caches, I would certainly be cooperative. The caches that have caused problems in my area were in poor locations (attached to old RR tracks, in wildlife sanctuary). The bulk of caches remain "Out of sight, out of mind".

I'm thinking about a backpacking event cache (8 miles round trip) in the Virginia mountains in May/early June. If there is any interest from Baltimore/DC/NOVA cachers (or others), send me an email. Brian: I might be able to get out of Baltimore on the weekend of June 21.Á

I placed the maps in .bmp format so they could be viewed by anyone. I don't know how common Topo! is in the geocaching community. Maybe for the second edition of the topo floppy, I'll add other formats.

I have done a rest stop cachethat was well placed. The cache discussed here looks like you don't even have to stretch your legs at all!

See this cacheas an example.

quote:Originally posted by skydiver: quote:Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:I've always tried to write something nice about every cache no matter how lame. It just seems like good etiquette to me. Although I totally understand how you're trying to be nice and polite with this practice, and that's and admirable quality, I disagree with the practice entirely. Certainly, if you honestly liked the cache, then say so. Doing so will encourage that cache placer, and others, to place more like it, which you will probably like also. Whether or not you should criticize a cache you don't like probably depends a lot on your personality as well as what you didn't like about it (i.e. did it break some rule like being on private property, or was it just not your cup of tea). That should entirely be decided on a case by case, cacher by cacher, basis. However, actually complimenting a cache you don't like only encourages people to place more caches exactly like it, which are just more caches you're not going to like. One of the most poorly placed caches I've ever been to has logs from people saying what a great place it is to put a cache. I honestly believe those are just people following the same rule you are, which is to say something nice about every cache, regardless of how lame it was. But the cache owners have used those logs a 'proof' that some people actually like that kind of cache.<SNIP>- YES! This is exactly what I was thinking. I try to be polite, but I do not praise lame caches. It is hard to be brutally honest, but the more honest people are, the fewer lame caches there will be. The cache log is the only form of feedback cache owners get. If you lavish the same degree of praise on lame caches and good caches alike, you are doing all of us a disservice. Let's encourage quality over quantity. Yumitori: There is a difference between an easy cache and a lame cache. I think we should be less praising of lame caches. I have found that the "lameness factor" is inversely proportional to the distance from the parking lot. I agree that there are caches for everyone. What one person writes well about in a log entry, another will simply say "Nice cache, TNLN".

The "lame factor" of the cache in question is pretty high. Gather up your toys and play somewhere else, if you can't deal with the situation.

Leprechauns: Thanks for sharing your story here. This might serve as an inspiration to other cachers as to a way to approach land managers.

Maryland's State Park guidelines can be found on the Maryland Geocaching Society website www.mdgps.net They are similar to PA's, but seem to be less restrictive. MD counties have not really said too much about geocaching. There seems to be tacit approval given there.

quote: I am a newbee, and this is exactly the first impression I got from the site today when I first signed on.."happy" and "nicely" fit the attitude already portrayed in this great hobby.After all, isn't the thrill of the hunt the major goal anyway?? Exactly! Welcome aboard!

quote: All the trails in our natures area are well marked on Stay On The Trail but when a geocacher leaves the trail to find it the same damage is done and a new geo trail is formed just like it was a reg cache. So ANYONE who goes off trail is violating the rules. This clarifies your earlier post in which it was implied that there are areas of the park that are off limits, but are not designated. I now have a more complete understanding. Geocachers must remember to follow the rules that are in place for a particular park when placing and finding caches. Common sense... quote:If you do take the time to get permission for any kind of cache (locationless being kinda hard) kudos to you. It's bull**** when permission is slammed in any way shape or form. I don't see any "slamming" of permission. No permission is needed to tell someone about a cool place of interest (place a virtual cache), if it is open to the general public. If a container is placed in a park, ask permission. quote: I'm in agreement there. The point I was making is that although permission for virtuals isn't necessary, we should ask in order to avoid ruffling the feathers of those in a position to adversly affect the sport. Human nature could cause some arrogant person to become very upset if they find out about something going on "behind their back". Better to make them feel like they have some control (wheter or not they actually do), and thereby avoid conflict. I see your point here. I have a problem with using the term "asking permission" in this case. I think opening a dialogue with land managers when "placing" a virtual cache is admirable (and should be encouraged). Only the biggest A-hole land managers would have a problem with virtual caches placed in *public areas*. They would probably not "give permission" anyway. You can't avoid conflict with some types of people anyway. Just look at these forums!

quote:On the point on virtual cache topic , there are places inside the park that are way off trail that no one is allowed to go without park personal, these are places that you just do not wander into but have to be looking for just the find right place to hide a cache we have all done that me included. At one of there parks, they and only them in the southern US have a tree that is the only one like it of its kind in the south and you are not allowed to go there with out some one from that park. This is by far an exception! Are there fences around this "sensitive" area? Are there signs denoting this area? How does one know they're not where they're supposed to be? If it's not separated by a fence or a sign, it's open to the public. I would safely assume any part of a park that is open to the general public would be fine to post a virtual WITHOUT PERMISSION. Land managers should be intelligent enough to understand the distinction between a traditional cache (container in park) and a virtual cache (NO container in park). I'm not a fan of virtuals, because they're a dime a dozen, but to each his/her own.

quote:Originally posted by GeoNap:<snip> I think the "experienced" geocachers are doing everyone a disservice with the TNLN philosophy. If there isn't anything there you want fine... TN... But at least leave a little something... It's the silly little treasures that draw people to this game (especially newcomers). This is THE BEST game I have ever found... Let's not let those that trade down ruin it, lead by example. If you TNLN, let it be because you forgot your backpack. I haven't always lived by this, but am going to try to from now on. It's the people that make bad trades that cause caches to degrade. I'm not going to shoulder the responsibility of improving a lame cache in the briars of a suburban park. The next person that comes along will take the more valuable item, and leave junk. That's not leading by example. That's a waste! Frequently, I leave a signature item, without taking anything. I tend to place caches in thoughtful locations, with good quality containers, and good trade items. This is how I lead by example in my area. The responsibility is on the finder to maintain the quality standard that the hider sets. My point is: TRADE UP! but, TNLN is perfectly acceptable. Let's not make any rule about "Trading Up" It's a personal decision. Geocaching has changed as more people got into it. Cache contents tend to degrade over time. That's a fact that has been discussed in the forums for the past 2 years. The newbies (who may be in it for the treasure) might be the ones making bad trades. Experienced cachers don't care about the contents, unless there are kids in the group.

quote:Originally posted by clps:I own some acreage within the boundaries of a National Forest. The property is posted Private Property, No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Fishing, etc. at the gate. The 'gate' at the entrance to the property consists of two posts with a chain across, which can easily be stepped over or walked around (notwithstanding the aforementioned signs). Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property? Do they have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache on the boundry of my property, or nearby in the National Forest, thereby increasing traffic and the ills that go along with the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic? To me as a property owner, the answer is a resounding _'NO'_ on both counts. The correct thing to do would be to ask permission from the owner of the property beforehand ...virtual or not, so that the property owner can have input on the matter, and decide whether or not the increased traffic is to his/her benefit, and how to deal with said traffic. Anyone who says differently is obviously not a property owner themself. How would you like it if I placed a 'virtual' cache on the street in front of your house? Would you like the increased traffic, trash, whatever, that would accumulate because of it? I sincerely doubt it. Geocachers need to think first before they act, and permission should be encouraged, not punished. If the parties involved cannot agree on a solution after a 'good faith' dialogue, then the virtual cache without permission should be canned, and the one that followed the rules and obtained permission first should be enabled. [This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 03:08 AM.] I agree that permission is needed if it's private property. BUT The virtuals in this thread are on public property, visited by many people anyway. The additional impact of a handfull of geocachers will not be noticed. Permission is important, but in this case, it is not relevant to the issue. It is not needed (IN THIS CASE). MOPAR: I agree! As far as I'm concerned, there was a final determination made on this. These threads won't go away until Jeremy comes in and reiterates the reasons for the decision, so the initiator of the thread will not continue the discussion. This thread should then be locked.

I attach a label to the TB so the person who grabs it out of a cache knows what to do with it. In many cases, the bug will not be taken until someone can help move it toward its goal.

quote:Originally posted by Matt1344: quote: There is nothing wrong with TNLN. It does not improve the cache, or take away from it. That's certainly true. TNLN is like you were never there. But is that really how you want to go through life — just signing the logbook as you pass by? Wouldn't that make a great tombstone epitath: Here lies the bones of a geocacher, Born someday, Died sometime later, TNLN This is not Philosophy 101. I'm merely saying Trading up is the ideal. In the real world, I would rather someone TNLN rather than place used golf balls in my cache and call it a trade.

Arguing over a virtual is a waste of time. Jeremy, please make a final verdict on this. I would simply allow both of them, so both sides can walk away with what they wanted in the first place. THEN... The rules/guidelines/etc... should be ammended to clarify this situation, whatever decision is made by TPTB. This could prevent this from happening again. If permission is the deciding factor, so be it. If it's first come, first served, OK. We already have a .1 mile guideline. This should have been enforced by the approver with regard to the second cache (Night Stalker's). This thread would not exist.

Let's be honest. After the first few caches, the stuff in there does not matter. New cachers will not stop geocaching just because there are cheap McToys (or worse)in the cache. "Trade up" does imply a value judgement on the part of the cacher. Let's not require people to do this. I like Sissy n CR's suggestions. When I cache, I will usually leave my signature item (topo maps and waypoints on a floppy disk). The cost of the disk is rather low, but "worth" more than some items in the cache. There is nothing wrong with TNLN. It does not improve the cache, or take away from it. I would never leave an item of higher value in a suburban cache. I might in a cache that required a significant challenge to reach. Trading is a personal decision.

Wow! The "Notes on Small Group Dynamics" (see above) are a useful resource. I wish I had that link last year when the MD group was forming.

Congratualtions! May your next 200 be as rewarding as the first.

The misconception that geocaching involves buried treasure is perpetrated by the media. I did an interview with the Washington Post back in July 2001. I was very clear that caches are not buried. I stressed that to the reporter, so it would not end up in the article. I also did a TV spot for TechTV that aired around the same time. Again, it was stressed that caches are not buried. Many parks associate geocaching with the old guys walking around with metal detectors, making small holes all over the place. Many parks ban metal detectors for that reason. Anti-geocachers are usually not informed about our activity. I have yet to hear of geocaching being banned because of actual, documentable environmental damage.

This sounds interesting. I'm inspired to do something like this in Maryland. Stay tuned...

Caches belong in special places, not under every log, in every small park. Web-ling said it best.