Wilderness Waymarking

[+Snoogans]

So, I have several (hella cool) waymarks saved in the Sierra backcountry. The fact that I would even consider sharing them is great honor, but 40+ geocaching events later and I think (most of) the folks on this site are worthy.

 

I also see some of them opening a can of worms about off trail activity, since the unenlightened view is that the wilderness should ONLY be experienced from a trail.

 

What are the odds of someone going all bleedin' heart about a waymark that takes you deep off trail to some awesome secluded spot? I mean, people get all up in arms about casual trails anyway. What are the odds that someone who would probably NEVER go there squawking about this? (Wa-Wa! casual trails & WA-WA! What about safety and such.....?)

 

I barely understand why caching isn't kosher in wilderness areas, since pack trains are allowed and their camps are trashy and permanent regardless of what people who never get into the wilderness think.

 

Anyone care to discuss?

[+mini cacher]

Interesting topic. I look forward to the discussion. However, while I pretty much agree with you, you certainly don't make it very inviting for some one to disagree with you and post here about it. This could turn into a very one sided thread. We'll see.

 

My opinion is if there is not a law (or rule) that prohibits me from doing it, I'm going to do it if I want to. Just because someone else doesn't think I should be doing it doesn't make it right for them to tell me not to. They can go "pleasure" themselves in the safety of there own closet.

 

I get really tired of people always trying to tell other people what to do.. mind your own business. There is nothing common about "common" sense or "common" courtesy. You worry about you and let me worry about me, thank you very much.

[+The Leprechauns]

Are there any signs or published regulations saying that off-trail hiking in these areas is prohibited? So long as I can be there legally, I sure appreciate guidance on the coolest spots to visit from someone who's more familiar with the area. For places where physical caches can't be listed, Waymarking is perfect. Or even if you CAN and DO hide a physical cache, list the waymarks too -- for the best views, summit registers, trailheads and so forth.

[+Snoogans]

Interesting topic. I look forward to the discussion. However, while I pretty much agree with you, you certainly don't make it very inviting for some one to disagree with you and post here about it. This could turn into a very one sided thread. We'll see.

 

Point for you.

 

I totally agree. I get in a bit of a mood where this subject is concerned. I'm sorry if my OP is a bit slanted, but many the past discussions on this subject have really gotten me frustrated by the opinions of people who have obviously NEVER in their lives been in a wilderness area. I guess I just expect the same old crapola about preserving the wilderness for the animals, or the tree spirits, or whatever and we shouldn't encourage anyone to go off trail....

 

The whole wilderness "everyone outta the pool" mentality toward something as harmless as geocaching has me a bit bitter toward PC tree huggers. Especially with everything else that IS allowed in wilderness areas. I guess I just expect the same thing to happen with waymarks in time.

 

I invite anyone who wants to, to disagree. I don't want this thread to become one sided.

[+FtMgAl]

Ok, I'll start the disagreement. I am in no way a tree hugger. I write letters to the editor often pointing out the stupidity of most "environmentalists". ("We want solar powered cars." Hey, dummy! Ever seen a solar powered car? You think you can get nine people in one? How big is the collector going to be for a nine passenger van that can cruise all day and into the night at 70 mph? Get real! It isn't physically possible except on a micro scale. And you want to be in a micro car on the Interstate when the semi decides to change to your lane? But I digress... ) Some way off trail sites would be fine, IMHO. I know a great waterfall in Rocky Mountain National Park that should be waymarked even though it is a couple miles past the end of a long trail. I also would like to waymark a local summit because it gives the best view around but I never will. It is the highest point in sight (other than some distant buildings) and gives a great panorama view. It is a sand dune. I visit as often as possible but I am very careful on where I climb. If it were public knowledge it would quickly no longer be the highest point around. It is very fragile.

 

So who monitors the recording of waymarks off trail that might upset the tree huggers? I'm not advocating preserving the area for the native animals. As far as I'm concerned, the proper home for a beach mouse is a beach mouse trap. I'm concerned that we could post waymarks that might be destroyed in a short time so that PEOPLE could no longer enjoy them. I want to maintain them for anyone who is adventurous enough to get off trail and see what's really out there that those who stick to the trails will never see. I'd love to have the category but when it comes time to vote, there will have to be some very tight rules on listing waymarks or I will have to vote against it.

[+Deneye]

I spend a lot of time out in the bush with friends and family. Mostly 4x4/offroading as I don't like to walk more than I have to I too have several places waymarked that are off the beaten path.

 

I've thought about sharing them through caching but then at the same time think about other places I know of that have become too "public" or popular...You have to go the extra mile to get to some of my camps, and compared to these more popular stops, they are pristine & virgin.

 

With that in mind, do I really want to publicly post the coords for such a place? Because maybe in a few years it will become an unusable popular spot like the others that are around. (burned out vehicle wrecks, garbage & trash all over the place, and upwards of a dozen tents all within spitting distance on a long weekend).

 

I don't want my places to be trashed by the general public. So no matter how much I would love to share them with everyone, I can't. I can only share them with those that I trust will not overrun them with rif-raf.

 

I may not be a tree hugger, but I do respect the wilderness, and my surroundings enough to want to protect what I experience, so that it can be enjoyed again at a future time.

 

By not sharing with everyone though, does that make me selfish?

 

Granted, only a select few will at first be able to get to these places because of the effort needed, but in this community (4x4) word travels fast and before you know it, every Tom Dick & Harry will be camped out there on any given weekend....you can no longer go there to "get away".

 

This is really neither for nor against a wilderness waymark, but I hope it enlightens some to one possible effect of such a waymark.

[+Touchstone]

Most of the hiking I've done in the Sierra HAS been off trail. I don't see a problem with this, and in fact, I'd rather hunt for a Waymark that takes me to someplace I wouldn't neccessarily see otherwise.

 

I look forward to seeing what you can come up with Snoogans .

[+The Blue Quasar]

Well the preface is that I totally agree that if I, as John Q Public, am allowed to be there, as it is a public place then there should be no problem.

 

BUT.....

 

I will give you the arguement that we get in Canada/Ontario from what would be the equivalent of the NPS.

 

I am paraphrasing here, but you'll get the idea.

 

"Third Party games or Websites cannot list the Geographical locations of our historic sites, or parks as this may cause undue stress to the site, and cause a reduction of the enjoyment for our other patrons"

 

We debated back saying the same things you all list, like "It's a public place, we can take pictures if we like"

 

To which we have been told "You need to get the permission of the Park Superintendent to use our facility for an organized recreational activity such as this. The increased chance of impact must be regulated. We are the land management authority for this site, and you cannot list the latitude and longitude of anything on our grounds without permission"

 

That is not to say that they are unreasonable, but if there is a Statue, or War memorial, or similar... we technically cannot submit it as a Virtual Cache, or what would now be a Waymark without getting permission in the form of a permit. And then it has to be approved by the Park Superintendent.

 

So, as you can see... Public means that you can go there and visit, but not for purpose of participating in a commerical third party activity.

 

{added portion} And in case you are wondering... it has occured before that Groundspeak has removed Virtuals because local parks complained that the Virtual was against their specific policies... Waymarks are no different than Virtuals, so I can't see that Groundspeak would handle an objection from a park authority any differently.

 

I don't agree with that mentality, just reporting it.

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited August 25, 2005 by The Blue Quasar

[+FtMgAl]

To which we have been told "You need to get the permission of the Park Superintendent to use our facility for an organized recreational activity such as this.

That is a very good point. I can go to a park that has picnic tables and bring a lunch. That is what it is for. You can do the same. It's a public park. I may or may not be able to hold a reunion on Saturday afternoon with 500 people without getting prior permission.

 

In general wilderness isn't going to be harmed by a few dozen people traveling there every year. Some places, however, would be devastated. That is why public areas have land managers. And the land manager must have the final say and we need to consider how the land manager is going to react when they see what happens when dozens of people show up. Are they going to overreact (as has happened to GC) and ban all of the subject activity?

 

The decision to waymark or not to waymark must be made on an individual basis.

[+nfa]

There are 2 separate issues/questions that are a part of any reponse to the OP:

 

Is it legal to place a waymark in a given spot

If I'm allowed to walk there, I'm allowed to mark a waymark there for other people to walk there also...I'm not leaving anything on the ground except for footprints, so a place accessible to the public is open to waymarkers.

 

Is it advisable to place a waymark in a given spot

There may be some areas that are legal to visit and/or waymark, that I, or other, may not wish to have the level of traffic that a waymark may cause...that is a decision for each person to make in either Waymarking or visiting a waymark.

 

If the answer is yes to both questions, place the waymark...if the answer to one or both questions is no, then find another spot.

 

nfa-jamie

Edited August 25, 2005 by NFA

[+Uncle Alaska]

I just don't understand how any agency or government can enforce the following:

 

"Third Party games or Websites cannot list the Geographical locations of our historic sites, or parks as this may cause undue stress to the site, and cause a reduction of the enjoyment for our other patrons"

 

Do they have online police looking at every web site? Are they going to start arresting everyone with a gps who happens to be walking around a location under "undue stress"?

 

Moreover, anyone with minimal tools and "decent" maps can generate coordinates of any location printed on them....i.e. historical sites, waterfalls, etc. who is to say that an individual discovered coordinates from a website.

 

I would hope that those posting a waymark would be careful to avoid extremely sensitive areas. I hope that those who visit such areas and note the "sensitive" nature will deter others from visiting, maybe the rating system will also help in some way? Self policing may not be the ultimate solution, but if this site takes off, it is not likely that any site admins will be able to monitor all of the waypoints.

 

Just my ramblings

-UA

Edited August 27, 2005 by Uncle Alaska

[+The Blue Quasar]

Like I said... I don't agree with that mentality, I was just reporting it.

 

Here are the direct quotes we have in Policy format from Ontario Parks

 

Receives request for geocaching in a provincial park. Reviews request to determine if appropriate for the park, giving consideration to the following guidance:

 

• Virtual geocaches may be authorized in provincial parks, with the exception of nature reserve class parks or nature reserve zones in other classes of park, and  historic class parks or historic zones in other classes of park.

• Virtual geocaches are not permitted in areas protecting cultural heritage features or species at risk.

• Physical geocaches of any kind will not be authorized in a provincial park.

 

then comes this

 

If determined to be appropriate, considers site specific factors to determine whether to allow and, if so, a suitable location of a virtual geocache in the individual park.  These include, but are not limited to the following factors:

 

1. Virtual geocache locations may be considered in park access and development zones as well as other park zones (except nature reserve and historic).  Locations must be selected to minimize impact to natural and cultural features (i.e., stay on authorized trails at all times, avoid sacred/sensitive cultural sites and sensitive locations of species at risk).

2. The virtual geocache location and access route must be safe for participants.

3. The proposed location of a virtual cache should not conflict with any other permitted uses (e.g. campsites, land use permits or lease areas).

4. Considers the applicant’s request in the context of the total number and distribution of virtual geocaches that exist or may be appropriate for the provincial park.

 

This part is interesting

 

If determined to be appropriate following consideration of site specific factors, authorizes the virtual geocache locations for a trial period of up to one year from the date of the procedure, using the Ontario Parks Virtual Geocache Contract (copy attached).

 

So as you can see, Ontario Parks expects that they have the authority to allow or or refuse VIRTUAL Caches.

 

Parks Canada is not quite so stringent, but they too have the same ideals

 

Virtual caches are to be located on official trails and in other publicly accessible areas, and must have educational messages related to the park/site associated with them. Parks Canada staff will assist with the development of educational messages for virtual caches.

 

And like I said before... Groundspeak has Archived Virtual Caches in parks that have complained about the Virtual cache being against park policy. I suspect that once these parks start seeing Waymarks being substituted for Virtuals, the parks will cry "Foul" and the same things might happen.

 

I don't think that this is the right way for the parks to act, but I am a little biased

 

So for what it's worth, I don't see how the US National Park Service is going to be happy with the new solution of Waymarking. Doesn't seem different to Virtual Caches, especially since no one is actually verifying that the location is non-threatening. Based upon what we see from Canada, I don't see anything new that will change things.

 

Unless Jeremy plans on being firm and standing up to these park groups and stating something like "It's a public location, we just list the information", he will be in the same boat he was with NPS.

 

The Blue Quasar

[nobby.nobbs]

don't forget that just because it's public land there could be a good reason to ask for no virtuals.

 

for instance if the cacher was required to walk over a special nesting wildlife area to get information. potential for detroying or disturbing rare flora and fauna.

 

common sense and care still needs to apply which is going to be hard with the sheer quantity that are going to be posted. 99% cachers will be responsible. the remaining 1% will get the rest of us banned from areas.

 

please act will care.