Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
dogbreathcanada

Geocaching volunteers working with PC

Recommended Posts

So, who are the individuals from the BCGA involved in the process? I know everyone from the organization isn't involved. What about BCers who aren't apart of the BCGA? Is there a <name removed> involved in the process at any level?

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

So, who are the individuals from the BCGA involved in the process? I know everyone from the organization isn't involved. What about BCers who aren't apart of the BCGA? Is there a <name removed> involved in the process at any level?

 

Please contact the BCGA for this information, what is listed above is who is working with Parks Canada. Further, refrain from posting personal information as real names, please keep this thread positive as we work with Parks Canada to allow geocaching back into our National Parks and Heritage sites. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then ... who are the volunteers from geocaching.com? This would be the place to ask that, correct?

 

I'd like to know. And I believe that if we're to be represented by them, then we should know who they are.

 

As well, why is an AMERICAN company involved with the Canadian government in defining any sort of policy? I'm deadset against that. Geocaching.com should not be involved at ANY level. This is an issue for Canadians, not for an AMERICAN for-profit corporation.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then ... who are the volunteers from geocaching.com? This would be the place to ask that, correct?

 

I'd like to know. And I believe that if we're to be represented by them, then we should know who they are.

 

As well, why is an AMERICAN company involved with the Canadian government in defining any sort of policy? I'm deadset against that. Geocaching.com should not be involved at ANY level. This is an issue for Canadians, not for an AMERICAN for-profit corporation.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, then ... who are the volunteers from geocaching.com? This would be the place to ask that, correct?

 

I'd like to know. And I believe that if we're to be represented by them, then we should know who they are.

 

As well, why is an AMERICAN company involved with the Canadian government in defining any sort of policy? I'm deadset against that. Geocaching.com should not be involved at ANY level. This is an issue for Canadians, not for an AMERICAN for-profit corporation.

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.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
dogbreathcanada Posted Today, 03:25 PM

 

As well, why is an AMERICAN company involved with the Canadian government in defining any sort of policy? I'm deadset against that. Geocaching.com should not be involved at ANY level. This is an issue for Canadians, not for an AMERICAN for-profit corporation.

 

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.

 

When did Cache-Tech state that he/she was REPRESENTING the Groundspeak corporation? From what I've been told, Reviewers cannot speak for Geoundspeak at all. They can provide information on policies that are listed on the Groundspeak site and rules they must follow, but as a volunteer they have no more authority than another other member of society.

 

The intention of volunteer reviewers being present ensures that suggestions for Policy conform with existing guidelines, and also to provide a contact point since a Reviewer is the only person that can List a Cache. Ultimately, they become responsible for ensuring the guidelines of both Groundspeak and Parks Canada will be met.

 

:mellow: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

When did Cache-Tech state that he/she was REPRESENTING the Groundspeak corporation?

 

...

 

The intention of volunteer reviewers being present ensures that suggestions for Policy conform with existing guidelines ...

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.

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, I do not think anyone in the working group has any other motives except for a policy that will be fair to all, especially the enviroment. Also IMHO, this working group was chosen by the PC officials from the degree of input and a willing to make a policy that will be fair. I know from other goverment policy making, things will never be 100% in favour for all, that is why there was a Interm Policy that asked for public input from geocachers as well as other stakeholders. I have seen best friends fight over a hunting zone that was closed to moose hunting. The fight never stoped the closure, and 2 best friends parted forever. So, if you would like to add some input or have any questions on the topic, please contact one of the members of the working group. If you have a dispute with the working group member in your area, I do not see the working group having an issue of contacting another in the group. They are all here to acomplish one thing...... and it is not to bicker over something, it is to better something.

 

That was my 2 cents

 

parker2

Share this post


Link to post

DBC, the intention of this thread was to keep the discussion of geocaching within Parks Canada properties going and to provide the Canadian geocachers information on what was taking place, not who is involved and why. The who is listed above, I was contacted by Parks Canada due to being a volunteer of Geocaching.com, I have the interest of Canadian geocachers in mind, which is why I volunteer for Geocaching.com in the first place. Other then the listing guidelines of this listing site and the encouragement of my peers, I do not get instructions on how to set the policy from Groundspeak.

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

The who is listed above ...

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.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I enjoy being Canadian I recognize that geocaching is an international activity and the listing services have to develop a pro-geocaching policy, it is a powerful imperative and it may well threaten Canada's Parks, I can think of at least one illegal cache that was listed in a provincial park and a geocaching.com volunteer reviewer needed to see the law before retracting the cache. Listing services are commercial services and they are driven by commercial imperatives, in addition they are not the most knowledgeable geocachers, the most knowledgeable geocachers are here, in the community.

This forum also gives those opposed an equal voice, there have been many people who voiced public apprehensions but I do not see them represented them in the workgroup, it appears to be a very pro-geocaching group. ;) I am glad to see that Parks Canada is interested in community input but I think by selecting some groups it appears that they are deselecting others, that is unavoidable but it could be ameliorated by recognizing there was a lengthy thread and much discussion because the community is willing to listen, to discuss, to offer ideas and let them stand or fall as the case may be. I think we should be helping to create the progress reports, not getting the progress reports.

 

I would like to make a suggestion to the workgroup.

I would like to suggest that this thread become part of the workgroup process. A review of current policies will provide some value but geocaching is changing quickly, everyone should be looking ahead and there is no replacement for public review, experience is valuable because geocaching is new, ideas developed by the workgroup should be presented in this forum for public review before being adopted as the workgroup conclusions, that would be my suggestion. I would further suggest that as you pose workgroup problems you pose them in this thread for public input as well, this thread is well attended by Canadian geocachers in general.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to know who the representative from the Maritime Geocaching Association is, and what they are saying on my behalf. I have had a cache on the outskirts of Kejimkujik National Park for 3 years. This cache has not created any problems for the park staff and seems to be quite popular with geocachers camping there. You only need to read my logged visits to see how happy people are to have that cache in place.

 

So I at least want to know what our area representative is proposing. If I differ from their presentation then I want to know it and have a chance to voice my opinion. I have not seen any posts from this person and therefore have no way of knowing what their stand is.

 

Some in this thread have indicated that they are not happy with their representative. Well I don't know if I'm happy or not, since I don't know who it is or what they are presenting on behalf of MGA members.

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I enjoy being Canadian I recognize that geocaching is an international activity and the listing services have to develop a pro-geocaching policy, it is a powerful imperative and it may well threaten Canada's Parks, I can think of at least one illegal cache that was listed in a provincial park and a geocaching.com volunteer reviewer needed to see the law before retracting the cache. Listing services are commercial services and they are driven by commercial imperatives, in addition they are not the most knowledgeable geocachers, the most knowledgeable geocachers are here, in the community.

 

They are however I would imagine the people most familiar with *exactly* what the rule governing cache listings are, and are probably most familiar with the proceedural side of exactly how a cache is reviewed, where modifications might be made, and what has been done in the past.

 

This forum also gives those opposed an equal voice, there have been many people who voiced public apprehensions but I do not see them represented them in the workgroup, it appears to be a very pro-geocaching group. ;) I am glad to see that Parks Canada is interested in community input but I think by selecting some groups it appears that they are deselecting others, that is unavoidable but it could be ameliorated by recognizing there was a lengthy thread and much discussion because the community is willing to listen, to discuss, to offer ideas and let them stand or fall as the case may be. I think we should be helping to create the progress reports, not getting the progress reports.

 

If you have any concerns that haven't been voiced to Claire (we've already got a summary list of the comments that came in during the public consultation period), feel free to contact the member of the working group working in your area. (me I think, you're southern Alberta right?). I'll do my best to make sure all this stuff gets addressed.

 

I would like to make a suggestion to the workgroup.

I would like to suggest that this thread become part of the workgroup process.

 

I'm sure all/most of us are monitoring this thread, so in a sense it already is a part of the process.

 

A review of current policies will provide some value but geocaching is changing quickly, everyone should be looking ahead and there is no replacement for public review, experience is valuable because geocaching is new, ideas developed by the workgroup should be presented in this forum for public review before being adopted as the workgroup conclusions, that would be my suggestion. I would further suggest that as you pose workgroup problems you pose them in this thread for public input as well, this thread is well attended by Canadian geocachers in general.

 

I don't honestly have an answer for that, except to say that I'll bring it up in our discussions.

 

I would like to know who the representative from the Maritime Geocaching Association is, and what they are saying on my behalf.

 

Honestly not a huge amount has been said, as the discussions among the workgroup members are just really getting going. I'll e-mail the guy from the Maritime Geocaching Association, and hopefully he'll get in touch with you.

 

So I at least want to know what our area representative is proposing. If I differ from their presentation then I want to know it and have a chance to voice my opinion. I have not seen any posts from this person and therefore have no way of knowing what their stand is.

 

We're all pretty pro-geocaching, but recognize that there are legitimate ecological and proceedural concerns that have to be worked out. Right now we're trying to figure out how to a address those issues.

 

Dale aka ibycus.

Share this post


Link to post

No disrespect intended Dale but you most certainly do not represent me and it is likely than many other geocachers in Alberta South feel the same way, you are part of a urban caching group and that group is not active in this area.

An invitation from Parks Canada to join the workgroup does not make you a legitimate representative of anything but yourself and the other Calgary Area Cachers who acede to your fulfillment of that role, you have no mandate from this area or myself personally though I do appreciate your efforts and believe that you are a good rep for this activity.

I am glad to see proactive geocachers fighting for the right to geocache in Canada's National Parks but would like to reiterate that geocaching.com has no place in the discussions, at all. Geocaching.com is a commercial service with a serious pro-geocaching slant. The cache I was referring to in my original post was widely discussed and those geocachers who felt it was entirely inappropriate had to deal with a volunteer reviewer who refused to retract the listing until the law was presented in black and white, this is not a reasonable approach to deciding policy in Canadian Parks, this is the "geocaching at all costs" approach and is to be expected from a listing service like geocaching.com. I am glad to have geocaching.com fighting to get caches listed, they make an eminent defender of geocachers rights, but they are entirely inappropriate participants for any type of Parks Canada policy workgroup and I am surprised that this is being fostered.

 

The policy for Canada's National Parks should not be based on anything that has to do with geocaching.com and to suggest that the policies and procedures at a commerical listing service should have some bearing on Parks Canada geocaching policy is entirely non-sensical, geocaching.com should have no role at all in deciding Park's Canada Policy in regards to this activity, the policies at geocaching.com are as relevant and as useful as the policies at terracaching or navicaching which is to say, not at all.

 

The selected workgroup members may feel that they have some mandate but I can assure Park's Canada that cachers from Calgary do not represent geocachers in Alberta South and furthermore geocachers in Edmonton and Calgary do not represent geocachers in Alberta, this is not sentiment, this is reality.

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post

Parks Canada maintained an open email submission to the entire country to gather opinions and suggestions for over 8 months.

 

Parks Canada then chose the people they felt would help provide the input required for Parks Canada to create a Policy.

 

Geocaching.com has no say in this policy creation. It is 100% a Parks Canada policy.

 

The staff of Parks Canada determined the members from the Canadian Geocachers that actively attempted to work with them.

 

Phase 1 has concluded, and Phase 2 has begun. If you wish to contribute our ideas, it will have to go through the individuals that Parks Canada has chosen.

 

At least Parks Canada is getting consultation from some of the people invloved in the activity instead of deciding for themselves.

 

This arguing about suitability of the Parks Canada consulting people does nothing to help Geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching.com is a commercial service with a serious pro-geocaching slant. The cache I was referring to in my original post was widely discussed and those geocachers who felt it was entirely inappropriate had to deal with a volunteer reviewer who refused to retract the listing until the law was presented in black and white, this is not a reasonable approach to deciding policy in Canadian Parks, this is the "geocaching at all costs" approach and is to be expected from a listing service like geocaching.com.

 

...

 

Geocaching.com should have no role at all in deciding Park's Canada Policy in regards to this activity, the policies at geocaching.com are as relevant and as useful as the policies at terracaching or navicaching which is to say, not at all.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

This arguing about suitability of the Parks Canada consulting people does nothing to help Geocaching.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

 

Cache-tech asked me to keep an eye on the Canada forum today because Cache-tech is busy elsewhere. This thread was brought to my attention.

 

In reading the thread, it seems to me that the original post clearly defined the purpose of the pinned thread as a place for the Parks Canada working group to communicate information to interested geocachers, and for geocachers to ask questions about the policy discussions. As the posts from Cache-tech and The Blue Quasar have already explained, the membership of the working group has already been selected, and geocachers are encouraged to contact the listed group that is closest to them for further details. Debating the list of names selected for the working group, or specific actions taken by individuals in regard to specific geocaches, are not the purposes of this thread as defined by its originator. These tangential discussions are taking the thread off topic.

 

Future posts to this thread must be limited to the substance of the proposed policy and developments in the Parks Canada discussions. Upon Cache-tech's return, we may decide to split out unrelated posts into a separate topic so as not to detract from the thread's intended purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure I am arguing about individuals inasmuch as I am commenting on the debut of the procedure selected and the degree to which it is representative of the best interests of Canadians in general, even those not in a large city or those who are members of other groups not represented in the Park's Canada selection. I like the procedure that Parks Canada has elected to use to assemble the group, it is very reminiscent of the "Where is in a Name" cache by Crusso, just send out some emails and drum up some help. :)

There is no attempt at negativity, there is an attempt to represent an input that appears to be missing and to represent facts as they are, not as the workgroup appears to perceive them.

Anonymized comments from another thread may not be the best way to process input that could be critical. Geocaching is furthered by any forethought which reduces long term issues with cache placements. Without getting into any specifics you are probably aware of many instances where the bests interests of geocaching have not been in accord with the best interests of geocaching.com. Critical input is necessary if a viable, acceptable set of guidelines is going to result, viable meaning that they work to further the perception and reality of geocaching as a positive thing and acceptable meaning that in the long run the government is not forced to react (South Carolina) to a perceived problem putting all policy aside and replacing it with restrictive law.

The results in Canada so far have not been encouraging and as the impact of this activity grows policy developed yesterday becomes obsolete, the activity is evolving. It may come as no surprise that I also advocate that the best time to close the door on the process is "never", keep it open and let everyone listen in and allow input that isn't always pro-geocaching or pro-comfort zone, this will result in the best long term policy for geocaching.

 

I would also like to clarify that I am a fan of this listing service and really do believe that the volunteer reviewers here are the leading edge of sport, this is where the envelope is made and this is where it is pushed, it is also where it is folded, stapled, torn and stained. In spite of my positive approval for this commercial service I still believe that they should not have a voice further than any other community member in regards to a Park's Canada policy workgroup and indeed, there voice should be less than a concerned member of the Canadian public. In fact a working association with this commerical listing service should preclude particpation specifically to decrease the perception of bias should issues arise in the future and the policy was to come under fire.

 

I like the workgroup idea, I applaud Parks Canada for using the approach they chose to use but I know the ultimate arbiter of the will of the public is the government and reversing law is a lot harder than adapting policy, keep the doors open to critical inputs, again this is all my opinion, I place no premium on my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

The cache I was referring to in my original post was widely discussed and those geocachers who felt it was entirely inappropriate had to deal with a volunteer reviewer who refused to retract the listing until the law was presented in black and white, this is not a reasonable approach to deciding policy in Canadian Parks, this is the "geocaching at all costs" approach and is to be expected from a listing service like geocaching.com.

I would like to address this part of what is said here, I remember the cache in question. The cacher had permission to place this cache from the city when it was placed and this was verified. The listing was not removed until further discussion with Parks Canada and those who gave permission was completed, the cache was going to be left in place, but enough noise was made to have the cache removed. I am not going to further comment on this cache, but it was listed with full permission, we do not list a cache by "geocaching at all costs approach"

Share this post


Link to post

This was split out of the pinned Parks Canada topic as it is not a discussion of the policy as intended but of who is involved.

Share this post


Link to post

After discussing this with the other reviewers involved (which is what I wanted to do before I listed anyone) I am providing the Geocaching.com volunteers involved with Parks Canada.

 

Cache-tech

Cache Agent

cachechisme

 

We were invited by Parks Canada due to our experience with geocaching and with geocaching.com. We are not in these talks to dictate policy for Groundspeak, we are involved for much the same reason we volunteer for Geocaching.com, we love geocaching and want to contribute to the activity in Canada. I am not going into further details, the requested information has been provided with the consent of the reviewers involved. Thank you.

 

edit:spelling

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

So, who are the individuals from the BCGA involved in the process? I know everyone from the organization isn't involved. What about BCers who aren't apart of the BCGA? Is there a <name removed> involved in the process at any level?

 

Why don't you just join the BCGA, get involved in the BCGA and get involved with the whole Parks Canada process within the BCGA?? That, IMHO, would be the path of least resistance..

 

K1W1

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going into further details ...

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!

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't you just join the BCGA, get involved in the BCGA and get involved with the whole Parks Canada process within the BCGA?? That, IMHO, would be the path of least resistance..

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. :P

 

Unfortunately, the LMGA is a little late on the scene.

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't you just join the BCGA, get involved in the BCGA and get involved with the whole Parks Canada process within the BCGA?? That, IMHO, would be the path of least resistance..

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. :P

 

Unfortunately, the LMGA is a little late on the scene.

 

Yeah I wondered about joinging an association that would have someone like me as a member - but I did.

Anyway I was at that meeting and we didn't spend anytime bad mouthing anyone. There were more topics to discuss than time available. There were 2 people nominated for the position who were at the meeting, me being one of them.

The LMGA group is obviously a needed group just based on the members and forum traffic, but IMHO it will have to go through more growing pains before it's seen as a voice of geocachers by federal/provincial & municipal groups. I may be wrong, but I think federal & provincial governments want to deal with a legal registered association rather than a loose knit group.

 

K1W1

Share this post


Link to post

I may be wrong, but I think federal & provincial governments want to deal with a legal registered association rather than a loose knit group.

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.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going into further details ...

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.

Share this post


Link to post

I may be wrong, but I think federal & provincial governments want to deal with a legal registered association rather than a loose knit group.

 

If this is true, the the Onatrio Geocaching Association would be precluded from what I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post

I will not be responding to any more private message in regards to Parks Canada and the workgroup discussions, I do not want to be misrepresented, not being represented is better than being misrepresented and the misrepresentation that I mentioned is already occurring even though I have only made a few remarks. I am not sure where Cache Tech got the idea that I was talking about a cache in Banff (see if you can figure where the misrepresentation starts), I never referred to that cache at all and do not believe it is relevant to this discussion insofar as cache placements go but it is revealing nonetheless. People need to adjust the focus so that they are not in the middle of the screen. Cache Tech's defense of this commerical listing service and their lack of culpability in that botched listing is very clear. Since my remarks are misrepresented I will clarify. This commerical listing service and a volunteer reviewer approved a cache in a provincial park where the placer of the cache directed finders to take some of the seeds found in the cache and plant them in the park. :P (really!)

This cache was approved and listed with these directions intact :PB) and when a local geocacher pointed out the problem with the cache the volunteer reviewer took the time to go out and search and link articles supporting his viewpoint (and hence the viewpoint of this service) that the cache was not improper or harmful. The cache listing was not retracted by this commercial listing service. Russian olive, loosestrife and mayweed aside it should be evident to school aged children that parks are not the proper place for planting seeds yet the volunteer reviewer for this commercial listing service seemed completely unaware that this was an issue, so much for the vaunted experience angle. It could have been completely cleared up with a single call to the parks service yet the reviewer decided it was in the best interest of geocaching ( or perhaps geocaching.com) to list the cache, to refuse to check and to take the time to find material to support his preference.

The concerned geocacher actually had to launch a letter writing effort and have a provincial park staff member indicate the correct chapter and verse of provincial law that governs the planting of seeds in parks. Only after the return email was posted into these forums did the volunteer reviewer finally agree to retract the illegal cache, this was not a misunderstanding, this was a succinct demonstration of the "cache at all costs" attitude that has to be part of a going concern if a profit is to be earned. It was completely unacceptable to Canadians who care about our parks. The number of parks that have imposed complete restrictions on geocaching in the United States continues to grow, another testament to the forces that drive commerical listing services, they will list it first, then when access is lost because of the problem they created, access cannot be regained . Now we are faced with the same group of volunteer reviewers that approved that cache being invited behind closed doors by Parks Canada to develop a policy for Canadian Parks while concerned members of the Canadian public who geocache are being told that they have no further input. When Parks Canada announced the interim policy the closed door sessions with commercial listing services that would occur afterwards were not mentioned at all.

I would urge all Canadian geocachers who feel that this is not right to send a letter to your local MP and make your objections clear. Use the names and details from these forums in your email and make sure your MP has links to these discussions. Put your concerns forward and make sure that as a concerned Canadian you are heard, Parks Canada is a federal agency and your local Member of Parliament is the correct person to write to in regards to this undertaking.

Make sure thayt your MP hears the words, geocaching, concerned, commercial and Canadian.

 

This commerical listing service has an extremely poor record in regards to restricting listings so that they are acceptable in certain locations. Ecological destruction can accompany listings and this service has demonstrated that they are not overly concerned, they are here to list caches and write "mea non culpa" when things go wrong. The provincial park cache that directed people to plant seeds in the park is a clear example of the imperative that drives a going concern, they have no place deciding anything in regards to Canadian Parks. I have been informed privately that Park Canada's efforts might be in vain if the listing service cannot implement the decisions that Park's Canada makes, publicy - that is a load of bunk and I feel insulted that you would offer that rationale in regards to the concerns I have raised. The listing service capability, their policies and their procedures are completely irrelevant. If they cannot do as Parks Canada directs then the naysayers are right and caches have no place in our National Parks just as they currently have no place in US National Parks.

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post

My apologizes wavector, as this was a thread concerning Parks Canada National Parks, I did not realize the cache in question was in a provincial park. The cache placement here itself was not a problem, it was the logging requirements that were the cause of concern. While I do not like logging requirements beyond signing the logbook, this is left to the cache owner. The cache owner indicated the practice was acceptable and permission is left to the cache owner to obtain from the property owner/land manager. It is not that we refused to check, this is the responsibility of the cache owner to obtain all needed permission and unless there is a permit process or policy set out by a land manager of a park system, we have to go by the information provided by the cache placer. We try our best to ensure no illegal activity takes place, I get a number of caches that I refuse where the cache placer sees no problem with it. Once it was pointed out, the cache was removed from the listing service.

 

I am sorry you do not want me involved with speaking with policy, I was invited by Parks Canada. If Parks Canada indicates they do not want me involved I will step away, but I do feel it important for me to continue to keep geocaching in our National Parks, not for Geocaching.com and Groundspeak, but for geocaching. I am not going to say I represent you or Groundspeak, I am there as a concerned geocacher. This is the same reason I volunteered as a reviewer, I saw a number of parks removing caches and became concern, so I stepped up to see what I could do, volunteering was one way I could do this. I am not going to argue the merits here for this. The time for letter writing was posted and now Parks Canada is going to create a policy on that input and the group selected will ensure their group knows all what geocaching is, the benefits and faults.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sorry you do not want me involved with speaking with policy

 

I can state very clearly that I am glad the real person behind the screen name Cache-tech is a representative of this activity, your dedication and your care are evident to me and I have had cause many times to say thank you, if I haven't said it recently then let me offer it again, thank you. If you personally were allowed to draft the Park's Canada policy in regards to caches on Parks Canada land it is very likely that we would get a good policy but that isn't about to happen is it ? (a better choice would be the NJ Admin, no disrespect but we all have personal preferences for geocaching authorities) :P

 

Let me state again that I am huge fan of this listing service and offer my complete support in a tangible fashion, I list my caches here, I buy and move Travel Bugs that originate here and participate here, I get excellent, no, I get better than excellent value for my Premium Membership fee.

 

These are not my objections to a listing service participating in these workgroup policy discussions. I have already stated and I hope demonstrated that representation is not a hit and miss affair. parker2 clearly used the word "reps" and there is no "rep" happening here, that was my initial objection and the point I tried to make. I have no grief with who has been selected and I am gratified to see certain voices being heard, they need to be, many people have the best interests of geocaching at heart.

 

For the record I think Cache-tech should have input equal to The Leprechauns or any other very experienced player, which in this case is none. My objection raised at the debut of this process was, is and continues to be the presence of input from those who work for or on the behalf of the listing services that make a going concern from the listing of geocaches. It is a Parks Canada policy and must stand the test of fire in time. I do not believe it has any chance of surviving a test by fire if when examined it turns out that certain parts of the guideline are in place to accomodate the commercial listing service and furthermore, the commercial listing service helped fashion the policy, I couldn't spell conflict more clearly.

I have stated privately and will state publicy that I think a policy that begins with the inclusion of the concerns of commerical listing services is doomed to failure. I think that it will eventually lead to legislation that makes policy moot, should we be geocaching in graveyards ?

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going into further details ...

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.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not going into further details ...

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.

 

The implied was not to provide further personal details of the reviewers listed, it was not meant to raise an eyebrow, just a long frustrating day.

 

edit:spelling

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

This commerical listing service and a volunteer reviewer approved a cache in a provincial park where the placer of the cache directed finders to take some of the seeds found in the cache and plant them in the park. :P (really!)

 

This cache was approved and listed with these directions intact :PB) and when a local geocacher pointed out the problem with the cache the volunteer reviewer took the time to go out and search and link articles supporting his viewpoint (and hence the viewpoint of this service) that the cache was not improper or harmful. The cache listing was not retracted by this commercial listing service. Russian olive, loosestrife and mayweed aside it should be evident to school aged children that parks are not the proper place for planting seeds yet the volunteer reviewer for this commercial listing service seemed completely unaware that this was an issue, so much for the vaunted experience angle. It could have been completely cleared up with a single call to the parks service yet the reviewer decided it was in the best interest of geocaching ( or perhaps geocaching.com) to list the cache, to refuse to check and to take the time to find material to support his preference.

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.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

This commerical listing service and a volunteer reviewer approved a cache in a provincial park where the placer of the cache directed finders to take some of the seeds found in the cache and plant them in the park. :P (really!)

 

This cache was approved and listed with these directions intact :PB) and when a local geocacher pointed out the problem with the cache the volunteer reviewer took the time to go out and search and link articles supporting his viewpoint (and hence the viewpoint of this service) that the cache was not improper or harmful. The cache listing was not retracted by this commercial listing service. Russian olive, loosestrife and mayweed aside it should be evident to school aged children that parks are not the proper place for planting seeds yet the volunteer reviewer for this commercial listing service seemed completely unaware that this was an issue, so much for the vaunted experience angle. It could have been completely cleared up with a single call to the parks service yet the reviewer decided it was in the best interest of geocaching ( or perhaps geocaching.com) to list the cache, to refuse to check and to take the time to find material to support his preference.

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.)

 

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.

 

At the moment, if a cache is placed in a National Park or certain Provincial Parks, I request the contact info of the park staff that granted permission and contact that person, because they have a policy in place. I have listed some caches in Ontario Parks because the park superintendant gave permission and confirmed this directly, but they currently have a no new cache placement policy in effect and I let the superintendant know this before listing a cache.

Share this post


Link to post

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.)

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.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

This is a very good discussion to be having, as it raises an important issue that we'll have to contend with when dealing with caching in the parks.

 

Perhaps appropriate to include in the policy would be something along the lines of a 'shoot first and ask questions later' kind of clause. My feeling is that this probably was a case of the reviewer not knowing what the law was, and then other people trying to convince the people and the reviewer in question that this was an issue (probably without digging up the section of the law, so it was just a one word against another kind of thing)

 

Obviously this is a bad idea, as while the cache is active, it damages not only the natural environment around the cache, but also our credibility with the parks people.

 

Maybe something along the lines of "If environmental concerns are raised with any cache in a national park, the default course of action shall be immediate archival of the cache. Cache shall not be relisted until the environmental concerns are sufficiently addressed. Should the issues not be addressable, the cache will be removed by the owner, or failing that a member of the local community. The listing shall be marked in some fashion after the cache has been removed."

 

Anyways I'm just talking out of the top of my head here, and haven't run this by anyone else in the group, but I for one would be in favour of something like this.

Share this post


Link to post

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.)

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.

 

What this comes down to is not common sense but more a moral judgment on personal beliefs. While there were no issue with the cache, cache placement, and permission is indicated, the logging requirement is what is being questioned. While I have apprehensions with this caches logging requirement, there was no indication that it was not a permitted activity, therefore I would have to object on my belief. Since there are as many different beliefs that there are people, how do you review a cache by this?

Share this post


Link to post

I will not be responding to any more private message in regards to Parks Canada and the workgroup discussions, I do not want to be misrepresented, not being represented is better than being misrepresented and the misrepresentation that I mentioned is already occurring even though I have only made a few remarks. I am not sure where Cache Tech got the idea that I was talking about a cache in Banff (see if you can figure where the misrepresentation starts), I never referred to that cache at all and do not believe it is relevant to this discussion insofar as cache placements go but it is revealing nonetheless.

 

Hmmm I also assumed you were talking about Banff Billy Goat Garden. I apologize. I was totally unaware of the other cache, but I'm willing to bet that at least one of the reviewers who is going to be involved in the discussions knew about it. Further I'm guessing they would agree that it is regretable that the situation went the way it did (possibly they have ideas as to how to fix it).

 

As far as private discussions go, my reason for e-mailing you in private was simple, I have a habit of taking certain things personally when I shouldn't, especially in a public forum. I don't have that problem as much with private discussions. Also, with the thread open at the time, the discussion wasn't really 'on-topic' so I felt a private e-mail was more appropriate.

 

People need to adjust the focus so that they are not in the middle of the screen. Cache Tech's defense of this commerical listing service and their lack of culpability in that botched listing is very clear. Since my remarks are misrepresented I will clarify. This commerical listing service and a volunteer reviewer approved a cache in a provincial park where the placer of the cache directed finders to take some of the seeds found in the cache and plant them in the park. :D (really!)

This cache was approved and listed with these directions intact :D:D and when a local geocacher pointed out the problem with the cache the volunteer reviewer took the time to go out and search and link articles supporting his viewpoint (and hence the viewpoint of this service) that the cache was not improper or harmful. The cache listing was not retracted by this commercial listing service. Russian olive, loosestrife and mayweed aside it should be evident to school aged children that parks are not the proper place for planting seeds yet the volunteer reviewer for this commercial listing service seemed completely unaware that this was an issue, so much for the vaunted experience angle. It could have been completely cleared up with a single call to the parks service yet the reviewer decided it was in the best interest of geocaching ( or perhaps geocaching.com) to list the cache, to refuse to check and to take the time to find material to support his preference.

 

Very important to bring up. Especially with the specifics. If anything though I feel this underscores the need to have the reviewers involved in this process. If nothing else, then to educate them about the concerns that the parks have, and to give them an opportunity to ask for clarification on things that may be in the policy.

 

The concerned geocacher actually had to launch a letter writing effort and have a provincial park staff member indicate the correct chapter and verse of provincial law that governs the planting of seeds in parks. Only after the return email was posted into these forums did the volunteer reviewer finally agree to retract the illegal cache, this was not a misunderstanding, this was a succinct demonstration of the "cache at all costs" attitude that has to be part of a going concern if a profit is to be earned. It was completely unacceptable to Canadians who care about our parks.

 

It is my understanding (perhaps flawed) that the cacher in question stated that they had permission for the cache. The reviewer in question was obviously ignorant of the law in this case, and without the section of the law in question to referrence its a 'my word against his' kind of thing. Now personally I would err on the side of caution, and perhaps this is something that needs to be included in the policy discussions.

 

The provincial park cache that directed people to plant seeds in the park is a clear example of the imperative that drives a going concern, they have no place deciding anything in regards to Canadian Parks.

 

They aren't deciding anything, neither are the rest of us. Parks Canada are the ones holding all the cards, and all the authority here. They and we can make suggestions based on our experiences, and try to clarify important issues. But when it comes down to is, Parks Canada are the ones making the final decisions.

 

I have been informed privately that Park Canada's efforts might be in vain if the listing service cannot implement the decisions that Park's Canada makes, publicy - that is a load of bunk and I feel insulted that you would offer that rationale in regards to the concerns I have raised.

 

My point was this (and I'm a little insulted at a private comment I made to you being brought out and insulted in a public forum without your first asking for clarification, but I'll overlook it.) I feel that they have the most experience with a side of geocaching that very few of us have any experience with. Questions can, and have been raised through this process about details of the review process that the logical person to answer would be a reviewer. If we should get to any of these kinds of questions in a workshop that we can't address, then not having a reviewer present would be a bad thing. I did not mean to imply that Parks Canada might come to some decision over environmental concerns, and then gc.com folk turn around and tell them to shove it because they can't do it. The real question is how to make this work in the context of what we as a community have. If it can't work in this framework, then we need to figure out a new framework.

 

The discussions haven't just been revolving around what will and won't be allowed, but also around how it can/should be implemented.

 

The listing service capability, their policies and their procedures are completely irrelevant. If they cannot do as Parks Canada directs then the naysayers are right and caches have no place in our National Parks just as they currently have no place in US National Parks.

 

If they can't do as Parks Canada directs then obviously yes they can't list caches in the parks, but (and this is necessarily speculation due to the lack of any kind of policy document) imagine for a moment that a small modification to the policy would result in the process being

 

a) simplified for the reviewers

:D be in fact a better overall policy environmentally

 

but no one thought of it being an issue during the discussions because none of us was a reviewer.

 

One of the ideas that was brought up and mostly rejected based on a comment by one of the reviewers involved was the idea of having a seperate reviewer designated for each park that would examine and pre-approve cache locations.

 

Seems like a good idea in theory, but in practice even reviewing a cache 50km away from your home base is going to take weeks (this was pointed out by a reviewer involved in the process).

 

An alternate suggested solution was to have a requirement of photos being taken around the cache site (perhaps in the 4 cardinal directions or some such, showing the area and state of the cache site).

 

This second approach allows for an objective evaluation of the impact of the cache that wasn't present in the first case.

 

Another point I think is important to clarify is at leas the way I see why we (being the members of the working group) are involved. Most of us were not elected to our positions, nor do many of us have a specific mandate from people in our area.

 

My feeling is that the emphasis is to get as broad as a population base for this consultation as possible. The way thes groups were chosen I believe was probably based on a search by Claire for Geocaching and Canada. Hence many of the people in the group were the contact people for the websites.

 

As you well know, the game is played differently in different parts of the country, hence the need to get people involved from different areas.

 

If you look at the group, we have someone from just about every province, but also different backgrounds. We all provide a different angle on the situation. While it isn't possible to put everyone with an opinion in the same room together, it is possible however to get a reasonable sample of the main different backgrounds out there, and try to construct something that will work in different areas.

 

Anyways, just my two cents.

 

Nothing in the above is meant to represent anything but my opinion, and how I see things....

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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 did the cache owner say when you emailed them DBC? I've always wondered what their take on the situation was. Did you suggest that they modify the cache rules to something like "take a sunflower seed home and plant it in you garden/window pot - please don't plant it in this park"

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

The problem is, legitimate is subjective. The risk is that someone with a personal beef against a given cacher will report erroneous concerns to a reviewer, just to make things awkward. Without the section etc, there is no way to tell you apart from someone just trying to make things difficult.

 

These things do have to be addressed in the policy document to make sure that the situations that come up are easy enough to rectify.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

As stated, we wanted to first ask who wanted to be directly named, with you jumping up and down as you were, you made some of the workgroup hesitiant. Further, the list of associations were given and all you had to do was ask them, I was not going to list anyone that I have not confirmed working with the group yet. Tell you the truth, with how you approached the situation, you make us not want to answer.

Share this post


Link to post

As stated, we wanted to first ask who wanted to be directly named ...

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.

Share this post


Link to post

As stated, we wanted to first ask who wanted to be directly named ...

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.

So confirming who was in the workgroup should not be permitted first? We are also not representing anyone, we have been asked to join the workgroup as experienced geocachers. The geocachers were selected due to being the contact person of the association or group, they may not have wanted to participate, suggesting another involved with the association or group. We listed the associations and groups that were contacted, this workgroup is still evolving and we wanted to keep everyone informed as we went along and you jumped at us for this.

Share this post


Link to post

So confirming who was in the workgroup should not be permitted first?

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.

 

We are also not representing anyone, we have been asked to join the workgroup as experienced geocachers.

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.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

So confirming who was in the workgroup should not be permitted first?

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?

 

We are also not representing anyone, we have been asked to join the workgroup as experienced geocachers.

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.

 

I think the names of the associations and groups broke it down enough that we did not have to spell it out further. From this thread, we don't want to represent anyone that does not want to be represented by those listed.

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

From this thread, we don't want to represent anyone that does not want to be represented by those listed.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...