Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
dogbreathcanada

Geocaching volunteers working with PC

Recommended Posts

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?

Where is this spin coming from C-T? The original post stated the following:

 

"The group is now in the process of collecting and reviewing relevant existing policies (over 50 exist worldwide), reviewing the public comments (anonymously -- personal information has been removed from the documents), and preparing for discussions with a Parks Canada team (selected for their interest in Geocaching)."

 

It states The group is now in the process of collecting ..., which suggests a fully formed group. Not a group in the process of being created.

 

Again, if the group wasn't fully formed, then it was a mistake to post what was announced, with wording that suggested that the group's composition was complete.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

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.

I am a volunteer of geocaching.com, but I do not represent geocaching.com or Groundspeak, as them. You asked for a list of who is representing and she gave you a list of who confirmed as part of the workgroup and the province they are from, but as mentioned above, someone from Southern Alberta did not to be represented by the association listed because they are not from the area. She merely listed the confirmed contacts and the province, does not mean they represent that province. Just because you worded it as representing does not mean that they are representatives.

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?

Where is this spin coming from C-T? The original post stated the following:

 

"The group is now in the process of collecting and reviewing relevant existing policies (over 50 exist worldwide), reviewing the public comments (anonymously -- personal information has been removed from the documents), and preparing for discussions with a Parks Canada team (selected for their interest in Geocaching)."

 

It states The group is now in the process of collecting ..., which suggests a fully formed group. Not a group in the process of being created.

 

Again, if the group wasn't fully formed, then it was a mistake to post what was announced, with wording that suggested that the group's composition was complete.

 

The original statement was to keep cachers informed on developements and we wanted to start a developement thread, all you had to do was contact the association nearest you and ask who was the contact person there. There are still some that need to be confirmed and this included the geocaching.com volunteers, once confirmed I listed them. Do we have to inspect every word and sentence, we want to keep everyone one informed but if we are met with a thread like this every time, well, we are less encourage to do so.

Edited by Cache-tech

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.

 

So, ummm any of the names she gave you different than what was already available here?

 

AFAIK the following people have publically announced that they are involved in the process (and as much has already been indicated here in various places)

 

Ibycus (me, aka Dale)

Brat & Testy

Chillibusher

Parker2

The Blue Quasar

Cache-Tech

CacheAgent

Cacheisme

 

Earlier today, Danielle Carriere (dani_carriere) indicated that their name could be released. (which hasn't previously been posted here). I think this just leaves out, as you mentioned, the maritimes, and Quebec. As indicated, we're just waiting for them to give the official okey dokey to release their names (I've privately contacted the person from the maritimes re. the person who wanted to contact the maritime person who was from the maritimes.)

 

Remember none of these people have signed anything, so all those annoying privacy rules are still in effect and have to be respected. There may be legitimate reasons that some people don't want their names/handles released (so far no one has objected, but we have to assume that they will otherwise we breach their confidentiality).

Personally I agree with you, if they are going to act somewhat as contact people, they really need to make themselves known publically. I don't think any of them object to that, but if for some messed up reason they do, it isn't up to me, or anyone else to release that information without their consent (I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that could be a way to get in to some legal troubles).

Share this post


Link to post

It states The group is now in the process of collecting ..., which suggests a fully formed group. Not a group in the process of being created.

 

Again, if the group wasn't fully formed, then it was a mistake to post what was announced, with wording that suggested that the group's composition was complete.

 

I think what cache-tech was reffering to (and you can correct me if I'm wrong here) is that there was some very minor changes to the group composition recently, also a lot of the discussion up until just very recently (i.e. about 2 days before the first post) has been one way, i.e. Claire to us and us keeping our local groups informed.

 

The actual primary membership of the working group has been essentially static for some time now (hence the original post about the group composition).

 

Hope that clears things up.

Share this post


Link to post

We want to keep everyone one informed but if we are met with a thread like this every time, well, we are less encourage to do so.

Sorry, but I'm fresh out of tissues. :ph34r:

 

What exactly was so wrong with my original query? I wanted to know who all the regional representatives were, as well as the geocaching.com representatives. That you made it out to be a secret club was bound to raise a few hackles, not too mention the question of geocaching.com's participation (which you've mostly cleared up.)

 

The position you accepted means you'd better be prepared for the roses as well as the thorns. Heck, man, as a reviewer at gc.com, you should know that better than most. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

I am involved in the Parks Canada workgroup as an active Geocacher from Ontario. I happen to also be the Administrator of the Ontario Geocaching Association.

 

If a Geocacher has something they would like to send me as a possible inclusion beyond the comments that they may have sent to Parks Canada already (I have a file of the content that was sent to Parks Canada, but it is anonymous.. no names are included).

 

I am NOT representing the entire province of Ontario and all of the Geocachers that reside there. However, Parks Canada chose me, for reasons of their own. I am in no position to evaluate their choices, but I am honoured to be included.

 

Any related content of usefulness can be sent to admin@ontgeocaching.com or through my profile page.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

As a new geocacher I thought I would like to add a comment from that viewpoint. :ph34r:

 

attention DBC:

 

Your rants and attempted bullying are likely to remove any respect that newbies may have had for your experience.

 

Your posts seem to take a position that you wish to be seen as the defender of the "average Canadian geocacher", and that you are trying to save us all from some "evil, corporate conspiracy" which is at work to exploit National Parks.

 

From reading your posts it is hard for me to tell whether you

A. want geocaching banned from National Parks (and lumped into other "evil" undertakings like logging etc.) or

B. are in favour of cache placement and caching in Parks Canada areas (with similar guidelines and publication standards used by geocaching.com.

 

You have stated your opinions (often with sarcasm) about the working group and process ad nauseam. I suggest that you may want to consider the expression that "It is better to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to speak and remove all doubt."

 

Personally, I hope to be able to read this thread in the future without having to wade through your self-serving diatribes.

Share this post


Link to post

B. are in favour of cache placement and caching in Parks Canada areas (with similar guidelines and publication standards used by geocaching.com.

 

You have stated your opinions (often with sarcasm) about the working group and process ad nauseam.

I'm in favour of B. But that has nothing to do with the make-up of the so-called Working Group. And my choice of B as no bearing on my calls for openness and transparency in the process, of which so far it's been closed and opaque. Apparently you can be on the Working Group and remain completely anonymous, even though your opinions will influence caching for all Canadians.

 

I'll continue to complain about the process until it is both open and transparent.

 

But since Claire is on vacation for three weeks, there's no point continuing until the process resumes.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
I am NOT representing the entire province of Ontario and all of the Geocachers that reside there. However, Parks Canada chose me, for reasons of their own. I am in no position to evaluate their choices, but I am honoured to be included.

 

Glad to see you come forward BQ. I have full confidence in you and the OGA to represent us in Ontario.

 

gm100guy

 

:ph34r:

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.

 

I don't remember anyone at Groundspeak pushing their interests on anyone. The folks that have reviewed listings in the past probably have more knowledge about the process than you do but they're not being controlled by anyone.

 

Unless Canada is any different the people who represent your interests are your locally voted representatives. Other than that you as a good citizen should take accountability and represent yourself.

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.

 

I don't remember anyone at Groundspeak pushing their interests on anyone. The folks that have reviewed listings in the past probably have more knowledge about the process than you do but they're not being controlled by anyone.

 

Unless Canada is any different the people who represent your interests are your locally voted representatives. Other than that you as a good citizen should take accountability and represent yourself.

 

Does that mean we should colour ourselves lucky? A previous reviewer in this area more than pushed both gc.com and his own interests above all else. Hopefully, he has no imput at all but he has proven himself devious in the past.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in favour of B. But that has nothing to do with the make-up of the so-called Working Group. And my choice of B as no bearing on my calls for openness and transparency in the process, of which so far it's been closed and opaque. Apparently you can be on the Working Group and remain completely anonymous, even though your opinions will influence caching for all Canadians.

 

I'll continue to complain about the process until it is both open and transparent.

 

But since Claire is on vacation for three weeks, there's no point continuing until the process resumes.

 

Dogbreath, I think you have missed the complete point of this. Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc. Also,from what I see no member asked to be on this. Just the opposite, they were invited by Parks Canada. If you wanted to be on the group or wanted someone else the time for that was during the public consultation phase. We are passed that point.

 

Now is the time to be supportive of the process. If you look carefully enough you will see a major positive. Parks Canada is actually willing to discuss a policy which means they are willing to consider a policy that will let our sport take place. That is hugely positive.

 

Influence the process by making positive contributions about the substance of what a policy should be that the reps can put forward. Stop the quibbling about membership which will not be productive and will not lead anywhere and is simply portrays negativity to the development of a policy. Enough already, the membership issue is dead.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in favour of B. But that has nothing to do with the make-up of the so-called Working Group. And my choice of B as no bearing on my calls for openness and transparency in the process, of which so far it's been closed and opaque. Apparently you can be on the Working Group and remain completely anonymous, even though your opinions will influence caching for all Canadians.

 

I'll continue to complain about the process until it is both open and transparent.

 

But since Claire is on vacation for three weeks, there's no point continuing until the process resumes.

Dogbreath, I think you have missed the complete point of this. Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc. Also,from what I see no member asked to be on this. Just the opposite, they were invited by Parks Canada. If you wanted to be on the group or wanted someone else the time for that was during the public consultation phase. We are passed that point.

First of all, Parks Canada is a government institution. It's not a private corporation. In the end, it's responsible to all Canadians. To ask that it conducts its processes in an open and transparent manner is certainly not asking much. Actually, it's only asking the obvious.

 

Secondly, it wasn't made clear during the public consultation that there would ever be a working group formed. If there had been that expectation, I certainly would have offered up some names.

 

Thirdly, the representation across Canada is a little uneven. Alberta has two representatives? Yet BC only has one? Did you know that Victoria is the most cache dense city in Canada? Why weren't they offered any representation? Why does Ontario, probably having the highest number of cachers in any province, only have a single rep? The moment I learned about this Working Group, I emailed Claire and suggested she offer one of the LMGA website administrators a seat on the Working Group, since he has 20 years of forestry experience, both with the government and as a forestry consultant. She, unfortunately, declined.

 

Fourth, reviewing procedures at geocaching.com are no particular mystery. There's a publically available set of guidelines they follow. From what I've seen, and from what questions I've asked (and had answered), there's no special qualifications necessary to review and post listings on this site. I'm sure it would take me less than 30 minutes to be able to review as well as any other reviewer here at geocaching.com. It's certainly not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc.
Parks Canada is a government institution, payed for by our taxes.

Therfore, they answer tu us, and their should be abolutly NO ANONIMITY involved.

We saw, in the recent election, that secrets are not accepted by Canadians.

This is a democracy, and as such, the semblance of openness and transparency as to be maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc.
Parks Canada is a government institution, payed for by our taxes.

Therfore, they answer tu us, and their should be abolutly NO ANONIMITY involved.

We saw, in the recent election, that secrets are not accepted by Canadians.

This is a democracy, and as such, the semblance of openness and transparency as to be maintained.

 

There is also what is called a right to privacy. No one at PC is keeping their identity secret. It is on behalf of geocachers (non-elected consultants) that this information is being kept undisclosed (actually with the exception of one name, I believe it has all been disclosed now)

 

I doubt many people, here would be overly comfortable sacrificing all of their privacy (full name, address, telephone number, home coordinates, what they had for breakfast this morning) just so a few people can feel better.

 

The information I am willing (but don't believe I'm obligated to release) is the following:

 

Dale Atkin aka ibycus

12 Country Lane Dr.

Calgary, AB

T3Z 1J2

(403) 259-2180

 

Oh and I had a glass of milk for breakfast this morning, as I wasn't feeling very well.

 

I'd give you my home coordinates too, but I don't have them on hand (roughly 51 07N 114 11W IIRC)

Would you be reluctant to release *all* of the above to the general public? I am (its already widely available), but I can understand why some people might not want to.

Share this post


Link to post

Few comments, what exactly do you see as not being open and transparent as far as what is *currently* going on (oh as I side note, FarSideX - Maritime Geocaching Association posted yesterday that they don't mind their name being released, apparently they already have on several other groups/forums etc, just not here... That only leaves one member unaccounted for (assuming I can count properly).

 

I can tell you right now, there is nothing going on in our private discussions of any importance that hasn't been discussed here. They are private for a very simple reason (which I think you've probably helped us clarify somewhat). We don't want every last word of what we say to be endlessly picked apart. Take the initial posting that sparked this thread as prime example. It contained some very simple information we wanted to relate to the public. It was carefully written by brat and read by us (the members of the working group) prior to it being posted here. It contained very simple information that we wanted to pass along to the community at large, that was highly relevant (the next phase is a workshop process, and these are the groups that have members involved, contact them if you need more information). Now look at the results of that.

 

We've had some 63 replies to something that simple. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if every little tiny working detail were made public immediately? We'd never get anything done.

 

What you'll see here is the synthesis of our discussions. You can offer input on it, make comments etc. Our 'rough drafts' aren't really fit for public consumption.

 

As far as composition of the working group goes, I don't think it was ever meant to be a representation by population, or anything of the sort, (otherwise as you pointed out there wouldn't be two of us in Alberta, and there would be a whole bunch more in Ontario). The lack of an LMGA member is probably due to the timing of this whole operation. Most of us (all of us?) started out as simply the contact people with our local group. At the time this whole thing got going to start with, I don't think the LMGA had any official instantiation (i.e. dedicated website). If they had I imagine there would be someone.

 

Back to the reviewer issue again. While I agree that the basic rules governing cache reviewal are right now no big mystery, how those rules interact with the general population at large is. wavevector brought up a very important example of this earlier. The issue of the seed planting cache.

This was a case where none of the rules were being violated (that the reviewer knew of), and the general policy is to require strong proof of anything is wrong with a cache before taking action (we've seen that over and over again in various areas).

Many people couldn't see why this cache wasn't immediately archived as soon as it was brought to light that it was apparently (and eventually definitely) against the law to plant seeds in a provincial park. The problem, as far as I see it, is the reviewers aren't legal experts. They don't know the law everywhere on the planet, and often these rules are difficult to track down (DBC, I believe you had to resort to contacting parks officials to get the specific section of the law involved). The problem that comes up, is not with the honest cachers who know the law, but with either the honest cachers who *think* they know the law, or the dishonest cachers who don't care what the law is.

 

I'm sure every reviewer can probably recall retalitory SBA notices on caches, or getting e-mails from people essentially whining about nothing, (not that I'm saying this was either, I'm just *trying* to see it from another perspective). Personally I have no idea *how* much of an issue these things are. A reviewer would.

 

Of further importance is that the reviewers fully understand what the policy that we come up with is and are aware of all the issues and motivation surrounding the various pieces of it. Otherwise its just a set of rules, and the reviewers will only be able to act based on those rules (caches which may violate the spirit of the rules, but not the letter may slip through in this case)

 

I think that about covers it.

Share this post


Link to post
There is also what is called a right to privacy. No one at PC is keeping their identity secret. It is on behalf of geocachers (non-elected consultants) that this information is being kept undisclosed (actually with the exception of one name, I believe it has all been disclosed now)

I doubt many people, here would be overly comfortable sacrificing all of their privacy (full name, address, telephone number, home coordinates, what they had for breakfast this morning) just so a few people can feel better.

The information I am willing (but don't believe I'm obligated to release) is the following:

Dale Atkin aka ibycus

GeoCache NickNames, Real Names, Regions and eMail adresses would be sufficient,

so that anyone interested could contact their nearest representative.

Share this post


Link to post

GeoCache NickNames, Real Names, Regions and eMail adresses would be sufficient,

so that anyone interested could contact their nearest representative.

 

Important to remember that many people have people out there that don't like them much. By giving out 'real names' it allows these people to associate them with a real world identity, and perhaps harass them in ways that wouldn't be appropriate. My real name is already plastered everywhere, so I really don't care.

 

E-mail addresses haven't been publically released for what should be an obvious reason (spam). Post your e-mail address online, and you'll see just how quickly that account will start collecting spam.

 

Contacting any of us is simple enough through the gc.com website.

 

Right now, geocaching handles, and regions have been released for everyone involved with the exception of one person (AFAIK). Anyone wishing to contact the one remaining individual may do so through me. I'll forward your messages on.

 

In relation to that last person, there may or may not be a reason they haven't released their name. It isn't up to us to out them. My personal feeling is that they just haven't gotten around to it yet, they certainly haven't said that they don't want their name released.

Share this post


Link to post
There is also what is called a right to privacy. No one at PC is keeping their identity secret. It is on behalf of geocachers (non-elected consultants) that this information is being kept undisclosed (actually with the exception of one name, I believe it has all been disclosed now)

I doubt many people, here would be overly comfortable sacrificing all of their privacy (full name, address, telephone number, home coordinates, what they had for breakfast this morning) just so a few people can feel better.

The information I am willing (but don't believe I'm obligated to release) is the following:

Dale Atkin aka ibycus

GeoCache NickNames, Real Names, Regions and eMail adresses would be sufficient,

so that anyone interested could contact their nearest representative.

 

I find it interesting that you profess an interest in a transparent and open process, yet you and DBC want contact information so that you can send private email to working group members.

 

Are you afraid to only post your submissions to the forum, so that they will become part of the public record and everyone can read and debate your suggestions and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Does that mean we should colour ourselves lucky? A previous reviewer in this area more than pushed both gc.com and his own interests above all else. Hopefully, he has no imput at all but he has proven himself devious in the past.

 

You shouldn't carp on other people taking the initiative when you don't. Color yourself lucky that other people are willing to do the work that others are not.

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone wishing to contact the one remaining individual may do so through me. I'll forward your messages on.

That's complete B.S. and that person should be removed from the process. You can't represent Canadians anonymously.

 

I will continue to raise a stink about this. And in three weeks when Claire returns, I shall bring it up again.

 

This will not be a closed door process, if I have anything at all to do with it. I will do everything I can to ensure this is an open and transparent process.

 

I'll draft up a letter shortly that people can email to their MPs about this policy process, with regard to its closed-door nature and the fact that an American corporation is being represented in the proceedings. The latter issue should get the attention of the MP, and that's what's wanted ... until such time that the process is opened up to the public.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it interesting that you profess an interest in a transparent and open process, yet you and DBC want contact information so that you can send private email to working group members.

I'm satisfied with valid gc.com (or other website) identities. Some way in which to contact the representatives to understand their views and positions. I don't require real names or email addresses.

 

And yes, some form of contact info so that ANYONE can communicate with these people. As is your right where government policy is concerned.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Does that mean we should colour ourselves lucky? A previous reviewer in this area more than pushed both gc.com and his own interests above all else. Hopefully, he has no imput at all but he has proven himself devious in the past.

You shouldn't carp on other people taking the initiative when you don't. Color yourself lucky that other people are willing to do the work that others are not.

You should stop defending the indefensible. You know what he's guilty of. Why you keep defending him is beyond a whole lot of us.

Share this post


Link to post

 

You should stop defending the indefensible. You know what he's guilty of. Why you keep defending him is beyond a whole lot of us.

 

I don't know who you are speaking of. What I'm speaking to is your inability to comprehend that there are geocachers trying to help continued access to park lands without any Groundspeak directives. Whatever petty differences you have isn't related to my points in this thread. If you aren't satisfied with the transparency that your government officials are providing you should take it up with them and not carp about it here.

Share this post


Link to post

Our 'rough drafts' aren't really fit for public consumption.

Only the "final drafts" are fit for public consumption, when it's too late to make changes? At what stage are the drafts leading to final policy open to public scrutiny (if at all)?

Share this post


Link to post

What I'm speaking to is your inability to comprehend that there are geocachers trying to help continued access to park lands without any Groundspeak directives. If you aren't satisfied with the transparency that your government officials are providing you should take it up with them and not carp about it here.

Dude, I don't even know why you're in this discussion. If Groundspeak as no stake in the issue, as you say, then you should have no opinion on the discussion either way.

 

But, since you're here and asking questions ...

 

I know full well what these people are trying to accomplish. I congratulate those who've made themselves known on the service they will offer Canadian geocachers.

 

What I object to is the process. And the closed-nature of it. There is no transparency, and with every succeeding note from this working group I see more levels of opacity added to the proceedings (i.e. our "rough drafts" aren't fit for public consumption; I guess they're protecting us from ourselves).

 

And this is EXACTLY the place to "carp" about it, since this is the only location in which to contact the working group ... there is no other simple method in which to communicate with them en masse.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

 

Dude, I don't even know why you're in this discussion. If Groundspeak as no stake in the issue, as you say, then you should have no opinion on the discussion either way.

 

 

I just don't like hearing that whole American corporation spin crap. Don't we get that enough in politics? If you're going to gripe at least make it constructive and useful.

 

What I object to is the process. And the closed-nature of it. There is no transparency, and with every succeeding note from this working group I see more levels of opacity added to the proceedings (i.e. our "rough drafts" aren't fit for public consumption; I guess they're protecting us from ourselves).

 

You probably don't do a lot of policy discussions and/or development. The reality of it is if it goes into print, regardless of what the group says, people mark it as a done deal. It makes more sense to work through it in committee and release the finished draft for other people to look over.

 

Forums are good for some stuff but an active meeting and smaller group can get through the high level stuff. Once you get into the details you can open up to a wider audience.

 

And this is EXACTLY the place to "carp" about it, since this is the only location in which to contact the working group ... there is no other simple method in which to communicate with them en masse.

 

All right. You can carp about it. It just doesn't amount to much, especially with your spin. Your antagonistic approach probably makes no one want to work with you as well. I'm sure many trying hard to do some good work just see you as someone who wants to sabotage a positive process.

 

It's just an observation over time but you do tend to thrive on disruption. Although conflict can help it can be done so in a healther way.

Share this post


Link to post

The "final report on geocaching comments/rapport final des commentaires -geocaching" email from Parks Canada just arrived. Time to go look at the PDFs.

 

----

 

You have valid points, Jeremy. Yeah, I know smaller groups get more done than larger groups, but there are methods in which to present ideas to the large passive group to get their input such that they don't impact the productivity of the smaller active group.

 

Yeah, I but I don't know how to argue any other way. The tone is forceful, for sure, but I don't wish to sabotage anything. I just wish for the process not to become insular and restrictive.

 

We'll see if this mystery member of the working group comes forward with an identity. If (s)he does, then we'll wait to see what happens after these workgroups Ibycus mentioned. If (s)he does not come forward, then we'll have to take other steps to open the process.

Share this post


Link to post
There is also what is called a right to privacy. No one at PC is keeping their identity secret. It is on behalf of geocachers (non-elected consultants) that this information is being kept undisclosed (actually with the exception of one name, I believe it has all been disclosed now)

I doubt many people, here would be overly comfortable sacrificing all of their privacy (full name, address, telephone number, home coordinates, what they had for breakfast this morning) just so a few people can feel better.

The information I am willing (but don't believe I'm obligated to release) is the following:

Dale Atkin aka ibycus

GeoCache NickNames, Real Names, Regions and eMail adresses would be sufficient,

so that anyone interested could contact their nearest representative.

 

I find it interesting that you profess an interest in a transparent and open process, yet you and DBC want contact information so that you can send private email to working group members.

 

Are you afraid to only post your submissions to the forum, so that they will become part of the public record and everyone can read and debate your suggestions and opinions.

 

Actually I think we shoudl be privately contactable. Certain people might feel threatened bringing up ideas in what is often (see this thread) a confrontational forum. In order to get as balanced an input as possible I think it important that people be able to submit their comments/ideas etc. without having to worry about what the communit at large thinks about them.

 

In that interest and as somewhat of a test I've set up parksstuff@calgarycachers.ca as a contact e-mail address for me (if it starts to fill up with spam I'll switch it off).

Share this post


Link to post

 

We'll see if this mystery member of the working group comes forward with an identity. If (s)he does, then we'll wait to see what happens after these workgroups Ibycus mentioned. If (s)he does not come forward, then we'll have to take other steps to open the process.

 

Is this what its all about? It seems to me that you should be arguing policy, not personality, and take policy decisons on their own merit.

 

I'm one of the few people in these forums that uses my name as my identity. I'm not sure why it should be any of your business what other people's names are if they don't want to disclose it to you.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll see if this mystery member of the working group comes forward with an identity. If (s)he does, then we'll wait to see what happens after these workgroups Ibycus mentioned. If (s)he does not come forward, then we'll have to take other steps to open the process.

Is this what its all about? It seems to me that you should be arguing policy, not personality, and take policy decisons on their own merit.

It's about opening the process. One of the people in the Working Group so far wishes to remain completely anonymous. This person though is representing Canadian geocachers in helping to create a Parks Canada geocaching policy. Top represent us, their identity should be known. I don't really care what form that identity takes, whether it's just their gc.com username, their real name, or an email address. The identity should be a method by which others can contact them and through which their views and opinions can be made known.

 

I'll take policy decisions on their own merit, but I think it's incumbent upon the process that everyone know who is behind those decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Parks Canada has made the choices and that is completely their right to set the process and make the invitations that they see fit. It is THEIR process not the geocaching communities. As such, they get to set the rules on anonymity, on disclosure of the discussions etc.
Parks Canada is a government institution, payed for by our taxes.

Therfore, they answer tu us, and their should be abolutly NO ANONIMITY involved.

We saw, in the recent election, that secrets are not accepted by Canadians.

This is a democracy, and as such, the semblance of openness and transparency as to be maintained.

Ok, first, even in a democracy there are rules and laws about privacy. Being part of government I know how complex those are and it is the responsibility of Parks Canada to make the determination about the appropriatness in meetings they convene. That is all I was commenting on. My point was that it is their meeting so they get to consult the law and make the determination not us.

 

Second, disclosure is always a part of a process but it is one that has to be managed and again within the appropriate laws and statutes and I am sure they are doing that. But again, it is their meeting not ours.

 

Finally, there is obviously disclosure going on here. But, and this is absolute, they can choose whoever they want to be a participant and that has been the biggest issue in this thread and I was asking the poster to stop complaining about that since it has already been decided.

 

So, lets put that behind us because I am daily working within the laws of disclosure and anonymity and very well versed in how a democracy really works. The disclosure process is already here, the rules have been set, now lets get positive instead of finding ways of criticzing each other in this thread like has happened here to me. That only works against us as a group.

 

JDandDD

Edited by JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

GeoCache NickNames, Real Names, Regions and eMail adresses would be sufficient,

so that anyone interested could contact their nearest representative.

 

Important to remember that many people have people out there that don't like them much. By giving out 'real names' it allows these people to associate them with a real world identity, and perhaps harass them in ways that wouldn't be appropriate.

Precisely the reason there are privacy laws and rules involving everything done in government and also why they are so complicated and necessary. In a democracy, we also make sure people aren't harmed.

 

This thread is very frustrating. It should be extremely positive. We should be happy that the government wants to take a positive step for our sport but instead some folks are simply taking the opportunity to be negative about everything. I say again, stop fighting and start supporting. We are going to get something good out of this if we let it and not undermine it.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

 

They are private for a very simple reason (which I think you've probably helped us clarify somewhat). We don't want every last word of what we say to be endlessly picked apart. Take the initial posting that sparked this thread as prime example. It contained some very simple information we wanted to relate to the public. It was carefully written by brat and read by us (the members of the working group) prior to it being posted here. It contained very simple information that we wanted to pass along to the community at large, that was highly relevant (the next phase is a workshop process, and these are the groups that have members involved, contact them if you need more information). Now look at the results of that.

 

We've had some 63 replies to something that simple. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if every little tiny working detail were made public immediately? We'd never get anything done.

 

What you'll see here is the synthesis of our discussions. You can offer input on it, make comments etc. Our 'rough drafts' aren't really fit for public consumption.

 

Again absolutely correct about how things work in a democracy ibycus. Not everything is considered public information. People's thinking outloud, so to speak, in initial discussions has to be considered just something that isn't. Good thoughts and ideas come about because people feel free to speak without being picked apart. Often people throw out ideas they expect to be thrown away just to keep discussion going.

 

Once something is put to paper, then it is part of the public record and not before. That is the point at which it can be forced to be public through freedom of information legislation and not before. Check the acts folks. That is how democracy works in real life because otherwise it wouldn't work.

 

In this case, people are being very open. Lets support them and be happy that they are. I for one am not the least bit suspicious of the people involved or the process.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

It's about opening the process. One of the people in the Working Group so far wishes to remain completely anonymous.

 

And if that decision is within the laws and statutes that is their right. Simply sitting on a working group does not immediately mean you give up your rights to privacy. The laws are complicated and there many instances in which people are allowed to maintain privacy especially if harassment or other reasonable concerns can be shown. Democracy does not mean you give up the right to safety of person which includes psychological safety.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

The moment I learned about this Working Group, I emailed Claire and suggested she offer one of the LMGA website administrators a seat on the Working Group, since he has 20 years of forestry experience, both with the government and as a forestry consultant. She, unfortunately, declined.

Imagine that.

 

All right. You can carp about it. It just doesn't amount to much, especially with your spin. Your antagonistic approach probably makes no one want to work with you as well. I'm sure many trying hard to do some good work just see you as someone who wants to sabotage a positive process.

 

It's just an observation over time but you do tend to thrive on disruption. Although conflict can help it can be done so in a healther way.

Probably the reason why you were refused. Based on your historical posting, I would bet PC doesn't want you anywhere around them. I am sure they would want positive input, not ranting and "or else" demands. It is like the sunflower cache. I told several of you how to solve the problem with the cache. I told you to go find the cache and trade the seeds out for a trade item of your own. It would have been easy to get the description and the cache name changed at that point. Instead, you and others chose to make a huge stink about in in the forums and through SBA notes. There was an easy solution. You chose to try to make yourself look good by being antagonistic to the cache owner and rant about it publicly in several formats rather than take the one single sure-fire action that could have easily solved the problem -- go to the cache and trade to remove the seeds.

 

The simple solution would not allow you to rant though.

 

I would imagine they don't want people like you on the workgroups because I'm sure they actually want to get something done.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is very frustrating. It should be extremely positive. We should be happy that the government wants to take a positive step for our sport but instead some folks are simply taking the opportunity to be negative about everything. I say again, stop fighting and start supporting. We are going to get something good out of this if we let it and not undermine it.

 

JDandDD

Gospel. Amazing isn't it.

 

Best of luck to those working for the cachers of Canada.

Share this post


Link to post

We are going to get something good out of this if we let it and not undermine it.

How can you be so sure? What exactly do you know about the 12 or so people on the Working Group? What do you know about their opinions on caching in our national parks? Sure there are a few good people on the group, we know that much, but will their voice be heard above the few bad people that are likely there as well?

Share this post


Link to post

It is like the sunflower cache. I told several of you how to solve the problem with the cache. I told you to go find the cache and trade the seeds out for a trade item of your own. It would have been easy to get the description and the cache name changed at that point. Instead, you and others chose to make a huge stink about in in the forums and through SBA notes. There was an easy solution. You chose to try to make yourself look good by being antagonistic to the cache owner and rant about it publicly in several formats rather than take the one single sure-fire action that could have easily solved the problem -- go to the cache and trade to remove the seeds.

 

The simple solution would not allow you to rant though.

You mean the PitA solution. The simple solution would have been for you to disable the cache (a few mouse clicks, that's how simple it would have been), and post a note instructing the cache owner to remove the seeds.

 

Sure, someone could have made a trade for the seeds. But what happens when cache owner replaces them, do we have to go back to make another trade, and another trade, and another trade. Not all that simple in the long run, is it. More like a pain in the butt.

 

Dude, we're not Iraq. Don't assume you know what's best for us as well.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Don't assume you know what's best for us as well.

Feel free to practice what you preach.

Ah, but you would not be able to do that would you. You would have to shut up.

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't Iraq. Don't assume you know what's best for us as well.

Ah, but you would not be able to do that would you. You would have to shut up.

Thanks for the mudslinging. I wouldn't have expected you to take the thread down a few notches. Nice personal attack. I guess it was to be expected that someone would start into the personal attacks eventually. I wouldn't have expected it to be a gc.com reviewer though.

 

I love it when Americans butt in on Canadian discussions. For a company that claims to have no say or input on the Parks Canada discussions, there are a lot of you American Groundspeakers in here.

 

And for the record, I'm not adding my two cents to any of the US National Park discussions. Because that's an American matter. It's none of my business. Comprende?

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Small containers in National Parks. While I agree there may be some need for a policy in order to protect some of the more sensitive areas, this is not a matter of national security or wholesale environmental desecration. Since the matter is of little consequence for the majority of Canadians, I see no reason to have the process decided with the input from anonymous cachers and certainly not from anonymous foreign cachers.

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

 

Check the members list. I've been on board since Jan 2004. One of the things I've come to realize is that no matter who is in power, it remains a clique which devolves very little information about anything.

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't Iraq. Don't assume you know what's best for us as well.

Ah, but you would not be able to do that would you. You would have to shut up.

Thanks for the mudslinging. I wouldn't have expected you to take the thread down a few notches. Nice personal attack. I guess it was to be expected that someone would start into the personal attacks eventually. I wouldn't have expected it to be a gc.com reviewer though.

 

The personal attacks on this subject started far earlier, up to and including bringing foreign policy about Iraq into a discussion of the regulations for hiding containers in Canadian parks. Reading over mtn-man's posts, I find them factually accurate.

 

I love it when Americans butt in on Canadian discussions. For a company that claims to have no say or input on the Parks Canada discussions, there are a lot of you American Groundspeakers in here.

 

And for the record, I'm not adding my two cents to any of the US National Park discussions. Because that's an American matter. It's none of my business. Comprende?

mtn-man is here because he's helping out with cache reviews in Canada, and some of his decisions have been called into question in this thread. Jeremy's here 'cause it's his forum. I'm here because I'm a Global Forum Moderator who is *not* involved in the Parks Canada discussions, or in the review of Canadian cache submissions. Jeremy, Cache-tech and mtn-man have chosen to engage in the substance of the discussion, and have recused themselves from moderating duties in this thread. That's the honourable thing to do, so I'm afraid you're stuck with another 'Merricun in this thread.

 

So, please everyone, do mind the forum guidelines. Thanks.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

To clarify:

 

1. I'm very happy that Parks Canada is likely going to allow geocaching in our National Parks. I'm estatic over this fact.

 

2. I'm quite happy with a number of the people selected for the Working Group. I'm happy with folks like Ibycus and Chillibusher being in the group. I'd be happy with Cache-Tech if he was in the group as anything other than a "volunteer of geocaching.com". I've no opinion on the others who've made some aspect of their identity known, since few of them post here, so their opinions are not well known. I have no respect for those that have decided to cloak themselves in anonymity (only you know who you are).

 

3. I've no desire to sabotage the project. I simply want to see it open and transparent, for all Canadian geocachers.

 

4. I'm unhappy that this process is being treated as though it were being managed by CSIS. The secrecy is untenable.

 

5. I'm unhappy that some of the selected Working Group, who are effectively representing all Canadian geocachers, have decided that they should remain anonymous and that they can effectively represent Canadians in anonymity. They can't. Nor should they. They should be removed from the process without question.

 

6. I'm unhappy that all discussion on this issue has to take place here, under the yoke of geocaching.com administration and moderation. I'd rather some organization set up a forum where Canadians can freely discuss the issue. There are Canadian geocachers who have been banned from geocaching.com. They're opinions should be heard as well, as they are Canadian and they are geocachers, and this Working Group does represent them as well (even if geocaching.com would rather no one represent them.) I'd offer such a locale for discussion at the LMGA, but considering my reputation, such a forum would be better served and hosted by an organization with a more neutral membership. (Can the Calgary Cachers offer up a forum?) I know a couple of people who have problems with Blue Quasar's participation in the process, but nobody would ever dare voice those grievances here, no matter how valid they are, because the Groundspeak "ban hammer" would come down hard, which is a good example of why a neutral website for discussion is required.

 

7. I'll continue to fight the good fight until I am convinced that Canadian geocachers are being served and represented in this process appropriately and democratically.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I for one am going to try to turn this conversation positive by accepting the process and from this point on ignoring the comments about the process and membership. I believe that good faith exists and that it is ludricous to believe any geocacher has an agenda that would be negative to our sport. So I'm moving on now to the positive to help make this work. <_<

 

If I could make one positive suggestion, would it be a good idea at this point to ask for a moratorium on removing caches during the policy development process. I was looking at a potential trip to Jasper National Park and found that the local manager had physically removed almost all caches. Depending that the policy may allow some of these in the future, it might be good faith move for Parks Canada to refrain for the moment. It would be unfortunate to have removed what might turn out to be appropriate caches.

 

In the meantime, geocachers should follow the current policy and not look for or hide caches during the policy process as our good faith measure.

 

Look forward to future updates. <_<

 

JDandDD

Edited by JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

If I could make one positive suggestion, would it be a good idea at this point to ask for a moratorium on removing caches during the policy development process. I was looking at a potential trip to Jasper National Park and found that the local manager had physically removed almost all caches. Depending that the policy may allow some of these in the future, it might be good faith move for Parks Canada to refrain for the moment. It would be unfortunate to have removed what might turn out to be appropriate caches.

 

In the meantime, geocachers should follow the current policy and not look for or hide caches during the policy process as our good faith measure.

 

Look forward to future updates. <_<

 

JDandDD

 

This is one of the requests made that was made from the beginning. After some time, it was decided to leave it up to the park managers to remove any caches deemed to be in sensitive locations. The request was made as the interim period was to study the effects of geocaching, but if you remove all of the caches, how can the effects be studied by the parks first hand.

Edited by Cache-tech

Share this post


Link to post

This is one of the requests made that was made from the beginning. After some time, it was decided to leave it up to the park managers to remove any caches deemed to be in sensitive locations. The request was made as the interim period was to study the effects of geocaching, but if you remove all of the caches, how can the effects be studied by the parks first hand.

Thanks for the reply cache-tech. The idea of the sensitive locations certainly makes complete sense and I'm sure will be an important part of the policy.

 

I've been to Jasper before and know that one cache was in Maligne Canyon and the amount of tourist traffic to where the cache was (wish I'd known about caching at the time) is causing a lot of damage but geocaching wouldn't likely be adding any additional strain. It was removed. It might be a useful cache (former cache?) to look at as an example of the impacts of normal tourism and adding geocaching.

 

Again take this as trying to be positive. Although I could give reasons why I think removing it was not correct at this point ,it is better, in my opinion, to live with park managers decisions since it has already been discussed and let the process determine what's appropriate or not. After all, environmental sensitivity should come into consideration for all caches we place, not just in Parks. Some examples of caches removed in the Parks and why might help the definition process but I'm sure the reps have already thought of that idea.

 

JDandDD

Edited by JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I recall that during our meeting that suggestion was made.

 

At the time, Parks Canada indicated that the policy would remain in place, all existing caches were to be removed. However, I know of at least one (and I am kind of aware of a few others) where the Park Warden went out to 'review' the caches and decided themselves that the cache posed no threat and allowed them to remain.

 

Regardless, Parks Canada has the authority to make a National Policy for its parks.

 

But there is also a project by one Park Warden to set up a few caches as a test, under the permission of Parks Canada, but to my knowledge this was very limited and done independantly of Groundspeak.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×