Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
dogbreathcanada

Geocaching volunteers working with PC

Recommended Posts

but rest assured that isn't what I meant, now or ever

 

Since you insist. :D

 

I said the commerical listing service could provide the report to Parks Canada.

You said you could do it.

I said that having you do it isn't an acceptable National Park Policy, that is my opinion.

You said it could be done with PQ's.

So who were you suggesting run these PQ's ?

Share this post


Link to post

Hello from your usually friendly forum moderator.

 

The recent posts concerning identification of cache owners and responsibility for cleanup of abandoned caches belong better in the main, pinned thread about the Parks Canada policy. Feel free to re-post summaries of your views there, so that the issues are included in the discussions with Parks Canada. This thread was spun off from that one, in order to deal with just the issue of involvement in those discussions on the part of Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewers.

 

In passing, I would note that many large-scale geocaching policies have addressed these issues quite successfully, with two or three year track records of compliance history to show for it. But since Groundspeak volunteers apparently don't know anything about this sort of thing, if one is to believe the prior posts, I'll refrain from sharing the many examples where I've been personally involved at the invitation of the local geocachers and/or the land manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Here we agree. I don't think the public should be footing the bill for our activities in the parks, which is why a favour a minimalist intervention by parks authorities.
Which brings out a question:

Who pays for flying all the participants to these meetings,

and for their hotel and restaurant bills?

Every member of his own pocket,

or every tax-payer?

Edited by blackjack65

Share this post


Link to post
but rest assured that isn't what I meant, now or ever

 

Since you insist. :D

 

I said the commerical listing service could provide the report to Parks Canada.

You said you could do it.

I said that having you do it isn't an acceptable National Park Policy, that is my opinion.

You said it could be done with PQ's.

So who were you suggesting run these PQ's ?

 

Well, I have no problem running them, but since that isn't good enough for you, it could easily be set up to run automagically on one of Parks Canada's many servers, and have the report generated and brought to them on demand.

 

Just so you know this kind of thing isn't outside my area of expertise, I've written quite a few pieces of commercial software to do very similar things, I've also already coded most of the pieces that would be required for this kind of thing, it's just a matter of putting them together.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello from your usually friendly forum moderator.

 

The recent posts concerning identification of cache owners and responsibility for cleanup of abandoned caches belong better in the main, pinned thread about the Parks Canada policy. Feel free to re-post summaries of your views there, so that the issues are included in the discussions with Parks Canada. This thread was spun off from that one, in order to deal with just the issue of involvement in those discussions on the part of Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewers.

 

While most of this conversation really doesn't belong in this thread, I think it certainly doesn't belong in the pinned thread. The currently pinned thread is "Parks Canada / Geocaching Workgroup Updates". This not being a workgroup update, or directly related to it, doesn't belong there....

 

Probably fits better in the "Tangential Discussions From The PC Thread" that has scrolled down...

Share this post


Link to post

While most of this conversation really doesn't belong in this thread, I think it certainly doesn't belong in the pinned thread. The currently pinned thread is "Parks Canada / Geocaching Workgroup Updates". This not being a workgroup update, or directly related to it, doesn't belong there....

What a very convenient subject header for that thread then. Basically, no one is allowed to post in that thread unless they are a workgroup member, otherwise it's off-topic. :D

 

And since the workgroup has already stated they will likely not post any updates until the final draft ... it begs the question, "Why is that topic pinned?" since it's not going to see a post for the next 6 months (at least).

Share this post


Link to post
blackjack65 Posted Today, 04:17 PM

 

Which brings out a question:

Who pays for flying all the participants to these meetings,

and for their hotel and restaurant bills?

Every member of his own pocket,

or every tax-payer?

 

Parks Canada has an existing policy that covers this already. Any individuals or groups that Parks Canada is using for consultation are provided with travel, lodging and meal allowances. This includes the members from the Geocaching community, the other Non-Government Organizations and similar attendees. This is how Parks Canada has handled such meeting in the past in other developements and meetings in the past, and has been relayed for this as well.

 

However, when OGA and the Reviewers attended the first meeting in Gattineau in April, each of us paid our own travel and lodging and meals.

 

I'm not saying this stuff to defend anything, just to make certain things aware to others. For that meeting, we all drove over 6 hours one way, leaving our familes behind, at almost the last minute (we had almost two weeks notice). During that two weeks, we had to prepare which took a great deal of time since we didn't know what to expect.

 

For this workshop, each participant will need to review dozens of policies from Parks Canada as well as other Geocaching groups. Most of us will have to take one or two days off of work (unpaid) to sit in a board room for two days and honestly, with strangers even with each other, to try to help create a policy that gets some form of physical caching back into Parks Canada locations. Right now, even if Groundspeak allowed Virtual Caches (which they don't), Parks Canada wouldn't even allow those.

 

This is an opportunity to start a positive movement. Even if the result is a limited allowance for physical caches, it gives us the chance to prove that Geocachers are responsible.

 

And let's not forget... Parks Canada is the one that wanted to create a better policy, because they can see some benefits for them. Don't think for one second they are doing this for Geocachers only. They are doing this because there is a clear benefit to Parks Canada through promotion of the Parks System. Parks Canada has mandates too, and funding to justify. They are looking at Geocaching as a possible way to creat additional interest with minimal involvement.

 

I can vouch for the fact that the main rep for Parks Canada has spent a massive amount of time on this project, so believe me when I say that Parks Canada is serious about its commitment to involving Canadians in their programs.

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Right now, even if Groundspeak allowed Virtual Caches (which they don't), Parks Canada wouldn't even allow those.

That was back when Parks Canada didn't have a clue about geocaching. They can't ban virtual caches just as they can't ban waymarks. A virtual cache is simply a coordinate, and there's nothing stopping anyone from giving other people coordinates to a location, nor is there anything remotely illegal about it. Even if those coordinates are in a national park.

Share this post


Link to post

Right now, even if Groundspeak allowed Virtual Caches (which they don't), Parks Canada wouldn't even allow those.

That was back when Parks Canada didn't have a clue about geocaching. They can't ban virtual caches just as they can't ban waymarks. A virtual cache is simply a coordinate, and there's nothing stopping anyone from giving other people coordinates to a location, nor is there anything remotely illegal about it. Even if those coordinates are in a national park.

 

No, but they can charge ya with trespassing if those co-ordinates lead you to somewhere you ain't suppose to be. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Right now, even if Groundspeak allowed Virtual Caches (which they don't), Parks Canada wouldn't even allow those.

That was back when Parks Canada didn't have a clue about geocaching. They can't ban virtual caches just as they can't ban waymarks. A virtual cache is simply a coordinate, and there's nothing stopping anyone from giving other people coordinates to a location, nor is there anything remotely illegal about it. Even if those coordinates are in a national park.

No, but they can charge ya with trespassing if those co-ordinates lead you to somewhere you ain't suppose to be. :P

Certainly. But that has nothing to do with posting of coordinates. Posting coordinates that might be in an off-limits area is not illegal. The onus is on the person trying to reach those coordinates, they still have to obey all laws and regulations.

 

I could post coords for the White House. That's not illegal. But if someone is stupid enough to try to reach those exact coords, getting shot in the process, the fault isn't mine. :)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

How much work goes into making a policy is not a measure of success.

I appreciate your ardour in defending Groundspeak Keystone but in Canada many of our parks have banned geocaching completely. Groundspeak is just one listing service and you are not familiar with the other listing services, your fellow reviewer actually used the word secretive in reference to one of your competitiors, was he incorrect? Excluding "Industry" and inviting reviewers who work on behalf of Groundspeak is sure to seem like a good idea to you Groundspeak reviewers. I think it pretty well guarantees that Virtual Caches will not be considered, even if the other listing services might want to offer that option to Parks Canada. Even though Groundspeak will not list Virtual Caches other listing services might be very willing to do so if Parks Canada felt that this was the way to proceed. Dave Ulmer, who invented geocaching, actually stated flat out that he wanted to see the game go to virtual caches, you can see this when you watch the Official Guide to Geocaching and watch the interview with Dave. His views are apparently no longer pertinent at your listing service but do confirm that Virtual Caches have a long tradition in geocaching even if geocaching.com wants to pretend they are dead or illegal or never really were caches.

 

The workgroup makeup is flawed at the deepest level and cannot produce a policy that is robust and comprehensive, this is my opinion.

Competitors to the largest listing service have been excluded completely while those who work on the behalf of that listing service have been invited. Concerned Canadian groups have been excluded, even groups which have made direct requests have been told that they are not welcome in policy discussions and some who have been invited have no legal standing whatsoever, they do not represent memberships, they do not legally represent other geocachers, yet they are on the workgroup. :P

 

Organizations, associations and societies are legal entities, defined under the Societies Act, in fact the words association, society or organization are protected terms in Canada, if you are not a legal group you cannot use those terms in your name. I have seen no attempt by Parks Canada to try and identify and work with those groups which offer legal status on behalf of their members. Those who act for loosely knit groups are individuals acting without authority, representation is not a hit and miss affair. I am mentioning this because I want to reiterate that I am a concerned Canadian geocacher whose concerns have been completely marginalized in the process selected by Parks Canada.

 

As a Canadian who geocaches, as a Canadian who works to promote geocaching, as a Canadian who cares about the Parks, please note my strong objection to the presence of those who work on behalf of a commercial listing service in the policy workgroup discussions, they shoud be excluded or those who work on behalf of other listing services should be invited to ensure balance and eliminate bias.

As a Canadian taxpayer I object very strongly to the choices made by Parks Canada for this workgroup. Every group which is a legally organized entity and represents a membership of geocachers should be included in this workgroup and every individual who has no authority to legally represent other geocachers should be excluded from this workgroup.

 

As a Canadian taxpayer I object strongly to my tax dollars being wasted on this workgroup as it is currently formed. When I complain my final recourse is, as always, to my local MP. In that case it is the Minister of Immigration, the Right Honourable Monte Solberg. :)

Share this post


Link to post
legally represent

You use that phrase quite frequently. Too bad you don't understand what it really means.

 

I suggest you read the following links carefully:

Canada National Parks Act

and

National Parks Regulations

before continuing down this line. You'll then have an idea what law and statutes are really about. Don't pick out one line somewhere as though you've found an answer because it will almost certainly be modified somewhere else in some other document. For example, the act lets a park warden pick up a package or item if he gets a warrant, and then several paragraphs on modifies that by giving them an open end to pick up anything without a warrant.

 

And, a workgroup is whomever the leader wants to have on it AND that workgroup can always ask others to join as the see fit. AND you know something, as a government employee who has been on a lot of these of the years that always happens. This is just the start and there is likely to be input from all over the place on this before its done. The workgroup leader IS accountable and they WILL be held accountable if they do the process incorrectly. I know that from experience which is why I base my faith on the process and selections on experience based fact not opinion.

 

So, rather than presuming you know how things works, and believe me, you have no idea at all, get yourself educated about the process, how workgroups are really setup, what powers they really have (far less than you are presuming, they can recommend but NOT set policy because they can't, you can find that out for yourself). When you get educated I will be willing to listen to you.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it necessarily an accurate opinion or even one that is necessarily representative of the geocaching community as a whole. When you can show that, and by the way your MP would want that too, then you can expect your objections to be listened to more meaningfully. But without that proof, then yours is and rightly will be treated as a single individual's opinion.

 

I too am a taxpayer and I support the people who are doing this. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with a commercial entity being on any workgroup. That happens all the time. Do you really think that commercial entities are not asked for input on banking decisions, on transportation issues, on communications issues, on agricultural issues, etc., etc., etc. Of course they are. It would be ridiculous to not get that expertise involved and in fact if a civil servant didn't they would be not doing their due diligence in coming to a decision. I'll leave it to you to learn about due diligence as well. Oh, and it is never possible to include every commerical entity, you attempt to get the most representative. The leader of this workgroup is accountable and I trust them to have looked at that issue because I know I would have and I would have made sure I can defend my selection process because I know I would be asked. If it emerges in the discussions that other groups need to be consulted they will be. That happens all the time and that is how democracy really works. That is also experential based fact not opinion.

 

You are assuming that tax dollars are being wasted. But that can't possibly be judged without seeing some outcome. Your are just making a presumption based on your beliefs and opinions and not facts. There are so many check and balances on civil servants and their work, far more than private industry (I can't believe sometimes how many times things that I do are checked and countered checked in minute detail). The public has no idea how scrutinized every action is. There are some many checks and balances in any process that it is impossible for the process to be hijacked by any person, commercial entity, or group. I've spent 26 years being educated about that and I'll give you a few days to understand that.

 

So, I agree that you have a right to an opinion. But to quote democratic process, just because you have an opinion does not make it right. Simply repeating it over and over does not mean it has to be followed because that isn't how democracy works. You've made your statements repeatedly, and they have been heard, but that doesn't mean that they have to be acted on just because you think they are right. Others clearly believe otherwise and I'm one of those. We all have opinions that we strongly defend but one has to be ready to modify them based on fact. When I see fact to show that my opinions should be changed I am open minded enough to do so and will. But fact is not the simple repeating of opinion.

 

So I'm back in this discussion, after putting much consideration to it, to stand up for the rights of all of us to have an opinion and be heard, not just those who repeat their's the most. Only by that means can the appropriate ideas and opinions be formed.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post
You are assuming that tax dollars are being wasted. But that can't possibly be judged without seeing some outcome. Your are just making a presumption based on your beliefs and opinions and not facts. There are so many check and balances on civil servants and their work, far more than private industry (I can't believe sometimes how many times things that I do are checked and countered checked in minute detail). The public has no idea how scrutinized every action is. There are some many checks and balances in any process that it is impossible for the process to be hijacked by any person, commercial entity, or group. I've spent 26 years being educated about that and I'll give you a few days to understand that.

 

What you say as a government employee is most likley true about all the check and balances in place.

 

But as a taxpayer it seems evry day we read or hear on the news about another government problem related to money or something.

 

Most that are on the workingoup are Geocachers who are just like us and concerned Canadians and want a policy to reflects what there views are for caches in our parks.

 

But some of the others here who have stated there objects to who make up this group also have there reservations about having anyone who works for Groundspeak in the group and they need to heard and listen to also and have there views taken to Parks Canada also.

 

And it seems to me that they maybe whining and going over the same arguments over and over again. But they do have some points with merit.

 

I also reealize being on a management committe for a non profit group everthing discussed is not always for public information, But if a members does ask me I will get them an answer and I find that not happening here. And also it is not proper for those wo are working on this group to not say who there are if they say that they are going to represent all Gocachers in front of the government.

 

I would put forward assumng that every province is reprented at the group level that the members of the group stand up hold meetings in each province and show the drafts they have and collect input frm those who are concerned that show up at the meeting.

 

Then no one can say ther was an secrets. And if they do not go to the provincial meeting then we need not hear any more whinning from them again and the process will appear to be more open and all views inputed to the govrenment to set this policy.

 

I think that this policy is an important policy and most provincial governments are waiting to see wha Parks Canada does to set there own Geocache policy.

 

GM100guy

Share this post


Link to post

What you say as a government employee is most likley true about all the check and balances in place.

 

But as a taxpayer it seems evry day we read or hear on the news about another government problem related to money or something.

Yes, we hear that. But there are at least a couple of things here. Most of what gets reported on is decisions made beyond civil servant level at cabinet level. That's how the press and opposition make political points. That's part of the atmosphere that the work takes place in. The civil servant cannot control the political decisions made by a Minister and cabinet. That's also why this group can only propose at best, not set policy. Actually, since this is labelled a working group I suspect it fits into the fact finding stage of a large policy writing committee and that the information from this group will be passed on to that group. Just supposition because I am not part of it, but that is usually what working groups are. If this one is different it would be useful to know.

But some of the others here who have stated there objects to who make up this group also have there reservations about having anyone who works for Groundspeak in the group and they need to heard and listen to also and have there views taken to Parks Canada also.

 

And it seems to me that they maybe whining and going over the same arguments over and over again. But they do have some points with merit.

No argument from me on that one at all. It is the constant making the same point without understanding process that I complain about. The best way to make a point is to make it and back it up with substance. This discussion has lacked the latter.

I would put forward assumng that every province is reprented at the group level that the members of the group stand up hold meetings in each province and show the drafts they have and collect input frm those who are concerned that show up at the meeting.

Actually, I think that is an excellent suggestion to help the working group. But this may not be the time and this is why I say so.

 

I gave the links to the Act and the Regulations. That's only the very top layer of the process. After that comes several layers of policy. At the Ministry the policy directive sets basic standards by which all other levels of government down to the individual service level will set their policy. The top level policy directive will have mandatory parts that must be followed at all levels and optional parts that can be modified as needed at the next level down. Then the regional (could be provincial) level will set its policy directive with mandatory and optional levels and then down to the local service agency (in the case the Park itself) to set its policy in compliance with the top level. In other words there is no single policy to be followed.

 

Why? Well, because each region in the country is different with different service needs, developmental goals, working relationships with various groups,agencies and local governments, etc. They have to have flexibility to adjust to their local needs. Even more so at the service agency level. In the case of parks they each have their own flora and fuana and other environmental sensitivities to be concerned about. In some areas, Gros Morne, Banff and Jasper stand out, they have existing communities within their borders that must be accommodated.

 

This working group seems to be at the very top level of discussion at this point. The outcome of this will not likely be and attempt to meet the varying differences in each region and park. That would be an impossibly long document that likely would not work at the local level and would be impossible to modify rapidly enough when needed. Think of a new species of animal being found in a park or a fossil find. You want the local level to be able to modify the policy quickly to protect those rather than having to go up the line and take months to get it done.

 

So, this is likely to produce a top level document to be followed by the regional and park documents. Those, by the way, will likely happen quickly once they are enabled to do so. I also have no no doubt that the process will follow almost all others that I have seen. When there is a discussion draft ready it will be made available for open comment by the community.

 

By the way, I am all in favour of everyone getting their points out. That is the best way to make sure all points of view are heard. But that also means that everyone in the discussion must allow that and not keep making their same point over and over and effectively shutting out other discussion.

 

One final point is the use of representative throughout this discussion. The word has been used within the meaning of delegate. These people are not delegates and no pretense has been made about that. There was an open consultation process through the end of December (I believe that was the date). The people invited emerged out of that process. This is a working group and as such is looking for a cross-section of opinion not delegates. So represent in this case means cross-section not delegate.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

And also it is not proper for those wo are working on this group to not say who there are if they say that they are going to represent all Gocachers in front of the government.

Here here ...

 

That's one of the issues that was the initial focus of this thread. You can't represent Canadians from behind a curtain.

 

Unfortunately, this workgroup has pretty much ignored this request in a flippant manner, pretending that there are privacy issues to contend with. If you're concerned about your privacy, then you should get off the workgroup and stop representing Canadians, because you don't deserve that role.

 

Releasing a gc.com ID, at the very least, is a small matter. People need to know who's representing them. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post

 

By the way, I am all in favour of everyone getting their points out. That is the best way to make sure all points of view are heard. But that also means that everyone in the discussion must allow that and not keep making their same point over and over and effectively shutting out other discussion.

 

Well put! As has been noted here and in the other thread, work group members are hearing from a number of geocachers, on a number of issues. Regional commmunity 'cachers have been giving feedback directly to the workgroup members within their communities, moving forward, discussing issues, and moving forward again -- as well, some group members are active on these Groundspeak forums, and are also paying attention to issues.

 

Please, don't let the discussion stop or stall...there is some wheat in the chaff ;-)

 

 

One final point is the use of representative throughout this discussion. The word has been used within the meaning of delegate. These people are not delegates and no pretense has been made about that. There was an open consultation process through the end of December (I believe that was the date). The people invited emerged out of that process. This is a working group and as such is looking for a cross-section of opinion not delegates. So represent in this case means cross-section not delegate.

 

Yep, that's the way we (Brat&Testy) look at it too. As has been stated here many times, workgroup memebers were invited to participate and we are happy to oblige! We look at it as another way we can give back to this great activity that has given us so much fun.

 

Back to figuring out tomorrow's 'caching plan of attack...

 

[edit -- typo]

Edited by Brat&Testy

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would put forward assumng that every province is reprented at the group level that the members of the group stand up hold meetings in each province and show the drafts they have and collect input frm those who are concerned that show up at the meeting.

Actually, I think that is an excellent suggestion to help the working group. But this may not be the time and this is why I say so.

This is already in the planning stage in Saskatchewan.

I gave the links to the Act and the Regulations. That's only the very top layer of the process. After that comes several layers of policy. At the Ministry the policy directive sets basic standards by which all other levels of government down to the individual service level will set their policy. The top level policy directive will have mandatory parts that must be followed at all levels and optional parts that can be modified as needed at the next level down. Then the regional (could be provincial) level will set its policy directive with mandatory and optional levels and then down to the local service agency (in the case the Park itself) to set its policy in compliance with the top level. In other words there is no single policy to be followed.

I have reviewed both the acts, reg's, as well as regional policies for PC sites before I sent my first email to PC early last year.

 

Why? Well, because each region in the country is different with different service needs, developmental goals, working relationships with various groups,agencies and local governments, etc. They have to have flexibility to adjust to their local needs. Even more so at the service agency level. In the case of parks they each have their own flora and fuana and other environmental sensitivities to be concerned about. In some areas, Gros Morne, Banff and Jasper stand out, they have existing communities within their borders that must be accommodated.

Excelent post. The Ecosystems will differ from site to site as well. This will be one of the main topics in my point of view.

 

This working group seems to be at the very top level of discussion at this point. The outcome of this will not likely be and attempt to meet the varying differences in each region and park. That would be an impossibly long document that likely would not work at the local level and would be impossible to modify rapidly enough when needed. Think of a new species of animal being found in a park or a fossil find. You want the local level to be able to modify the policy quickly to protect those rather than having to go up the line and take months to get it done.

So, this is likely to produce a top level document to be followed by the regional and park documents. Those, by the way, will likely happen quickly once they are enabled to do so. I also have no no doubt that the process will follow almost all others that I have seen. When there is a discussion draft ready it will be made available for open comment by the community.

What you are talking about here is not an issue. Just as PC imposed a "interm policy" on geocaching, other issues can be done in the same way. The main diffrence between an "ACT" and a "REGULATION", is that an "ACT" has to be passed through goverment and a "REGULATION" just has to be passed through there officials. In order for an "ACT" to be placed into low, the "ACT" must be opened. This will never happen as when an "ACT" is opened, everything that has already been established can be questioned by anyone. This would cause lots of grief for PC in a whole. So IMHO, PC will make this a regulation and possibly move it into the "ACT" as a addition to the act so to speak.

 

By the way, I am all in favour of everyone getting their points out. That is the best way to make sure all points of view are heard. But that also means that everyone in the discussion must allow that and not keep making their same point over and over and effectively shutting out other discussion.

 

One final point is the use of representative throughout this discussion. The word has been used within the meaning of delegate. These people are not delegates and no pretense has been made about that. There was an open consultation process through the end of December (I believe that was the date). The people invited emerged out of that process. This is a working group and as such is looking for a cross-section of opinion not delegates. So represent in this case means cross-section not delegate.

IMHO, the word "representative" might of been used out of context by some or all. I know in my position, I will be giving the workgroup all feelings expressed from all complied data I have received from emails, surveys, meetings, etc. I will be giving this compiled data, not my own opinion of the matter.

 

parker2

Owen Parker

geocaching (at) parker12.com

Share this post


Link to post
from a number of geocachers

 

Are you suggesting that you represent a number of geocachers ?

Who is at the table, why are they there ?

This has been asked by a lot of people.

As it stands if someone is not part of a legally organized association they are there as individuals.

I object very strongly to a single commercial listing service being present via reviewers who work on their behalf. JDandDD says that all the individuals are there by the invite of a Team Leader and that this Team Leader will be accountable. If I shut up as suggested my objections would not be part of the record would they ?

 

I am not objecting to Parks Canada seeking input from geocachers, I am objecting because no effort has been made to find those who can and do represent memberships. I am not sure how the Team Leader made selections and don't doubt that the process is like the workgroup, behind closed doors, but I can see the flawed results of the process and object on those grounds. The other Albertan selected to represent geocaching has specifically stated that he does not represent any membership. I was informed that he is a software salesman, do you have any concerns at all that this "delegate" for a "delegation" that does not exist is suggesting all the problems with caches in Parks Canada space can be handled by software that he will provide ? Do you think this is faithfully representing geocachers, the geocaching community and how they feel about caches in Parks ? Do you think that if he is successful in selling his software to Parks Canada that problems with geocaches in Parks will disappear ?

 

Do you also think I am going to be charged with littering ? :D:D:D

Do you sell anything ?

 

I would like to know why you think you should be there but not Angry Kid ? Since I cannot ask the Team Leader, the door is closed, maybe you have some inkling of why you were invited ?

Are you there because you got the email for a website ?

 

The Parks Act may not be relevant but the The Societies Act does apply, a society can legally represent their members, a society votes.

Voting 7 (1) A voting member of a society has only one vote, and, despite any contrary provision in the bylaws, may exercise that vote on every matter without restrictions.

Did Parks Canada make any effort at all to discern if legal associations existed as suggested by an earlier poster ?

 

I actually like the idea of Cache-tech being there, if I accept my own argument he is there as a representative of my best interests as a member of this site. :D

 

Assembling a bunch of individuals with no mandate and no membership is no process. I know I haven't said that yet. :D

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post

I have reviewed both the acts, reg's, as well as regional policies for PC sites before I sent my first email to PC early last year.

I wish everyone had done that. Its the only way that people understand the underlying complexities that Parks Canada is working with. There was no criticism of people intended but rather to say understand that this is a complex process when talking about government.

 

What you are talking about here is not an issue. Just as PC imposed a "interm policy" on geocaching, other issues can be done in the same way. The main diffrence between an "ACT" and a "REGULATION", is that an "ACT" has to be passed through goverment and a "REGULATION" just has to be passed through there officials. In order for an "ACT" to be placed into low, the "ACT" must be opened. This will never happen as when an "ACT" is opened, everything that has already been established can be questioned by anyone. This would cause lots of grief for PC in a whole. So IMHO, PC will make this a regulation and possibly move it into the "ACT" as a addition to the act so to speak.

That is the main difference as the act, like any act, specifically sets out the ability to make regulations and by who. The interim policy was done according to the specific sections of the act so it would appear possible that they can do this as a policy and not a regulation. However, the policy process still has to follow regardless of which way is chosen as the starting point. You are right to point out the possibility of regulation, however.

 

word "representative" might of been used out of context by some or all. I know in my position, I will be giving the workgroup all feelings expressed from all complied data I have received from emails, surveys, meetings, etc. I will be giving this compiled data, not my own opinion of the matter.

And that's terrific if you choose to do so. My point is though, that the working group are not delegates but a cross-section. The more information that one gathers the better the information the group will have. However, as a cross-section that is a personal choice not a requirement. And please give your personal opinion as well, that is also important in the process and one of the expectations of your having been chosen. As I say, more power to you for getting other info, and I would not argue against doing that, but that was your choice. If you were a delegate it would be a requirement.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post
The other Albertan selected to represent geocaching has specifically stated that he does not represent any membership. I was informed that he is a software salesman, do you have any concerns at all that this "delegate" for a "delegation" that does not exist is suggesting all the problems with caches in Parks Canada space can be handled by software that he will provide ? Do you think this is faithfully representing geocachers, the geocaching community and how they feel about caches in Parks ? Do you think that if he is successful in selling his software to Parks Canada that problems with geocaches in Parks will disappear ?

 

Ummmm, did I ever say I was planning on selling this to Parks Canada.... Don't think so. My intention was to do this for free, should it be required.

And no, I'm not a salesman either. I've actually never gone out and tried to sell anything to anyone in my life. The software I've written, and sold has all been on the basis of people coming to me, and asking for a license for it. (i.e. If you build it, they will come). Most of it sprung out of specific problems I was trying to meet for some work I was doing. I developed the software on my own time, and then with permission of my employer proceeded to sell some of that software publically. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

 

Oh, and as far as legal entities go, I'd like to point out, that at the moment there are very few 'legal' entities in any of the provinces, (is GAS even one yet? I'm not sure). I know neither CAC, or GCE are legal entities, don't know about the other groups.

 

There has been quite a bit of resistance on the CAC forums to any additional organizational structure imposed, and people seem perfectly happy with the status quo. We're all watching GAS, honestly curious to see how it will evolve (if you're structure turns out to be a benefit, we may steal it, and set up a structure ourselves, but right now, I don't think anyone has expressed that they feel a need for one.).

 

Actually given that from what I've seen, the majority of cachers active in Alberta don't see the need for a formalized structure like the one you're implementing for GAS (and obviously as we're not heavily organized its hard to tell for sure), I would argue that a 'representative' from a legally organized structure, would actually be less representative of the average Albertan cacher than one chosen from a loosely organized group.

Share this post


Link to post

While most of this conversation really doesn't belong in this thread, I think it certainly doesn't belong in the pinned thread. The currently pinned thread is "Parks Canada / Geocaching Workgroup Updates". This not being a workgroup update, or directly related to it, doesn't belong there....

What a very convenient subject header for that thread then. Basically, no one is allowed to post in that thread unless they are a workgroup member, otherwise it's off-topic. :D

 

And since the workgroup has already stated they will likely not post any updates until the final draft ... it begs the question, "Why is that topic pinned?" since it's not going to see a post for the next 6 months (at least).

 

Well, give that it has seen official updates in far less time than that, I don't think your point holds.

 

The main purpose it to provide an easy reference for those wanting to get an overview of what the current 'state of affairs' is. If it were in a thread like this one, the 'official' information as to exactly what is going on, gets lost in the endless debates over how its going on. I doubt seriously that anyone starting looking at this thread now gets anything even remotely close to reading all the posts. The pinned thread though can easily be read and digested by anyone.

 

Further, given that this thread has been pretty much at the top of the list since it was created, I personally don't think there is any need to pin it. Anyone can find it, and any one who wishes to can get a fairly quick idea of what the issues are around the official releases.

Share this post


Link to post
additional organizational structure imposed
:D

 

Imagine that.

Organizational structures are usually adopted by memberships, not imposed.

 

Is the use of your geocaching.com ID and persona to sell software deliberate ?

http://www.ibycus.com

I wonder what you would be saying in the Parks Canada workgroup if you sold vacuum cleaners ?

 

Other Albertans might not consider you a good representative at all.

 

Could you explain why you feel you should be there in that workgroup ?

I am still awaiting an answer to a similar question I posed to the other Albertan invited ?

Were you also invited because you received an email about your website?

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post
very few 'legal' entities

 

If this work group was reformed with even just one group that represented geocachers legally and included representatives from the commercial listing services then I would have far less reason to object. Even one legal entity that actually does represent geocachers is preferable to the current process, which I view as an unmitigated disaster, this my personal opinion and not meant to represent a "number of geocachers" though it might.

Share this post


Link to post
additional organizational structure imposed
:D

 

Imagine that.

Organizational structures are usually adopted by memberships, not imposed.

 

Seeing as how we don't have any official membership, it would be rather difficult, at least at this stage for the first step not to be the imposition of an organizational structure around the existing grouping. Even creating a membership list, in order to allow people to vote in any kind of official fashion would be imposing an additional organizational structure over and above what is present at the moment. So yes the use of imposition as opposed to adoption was intentional.

 

Is the use of your geocaching.com ID and persona to sell software deliberate ?

http://www.ibycus.com

I wonder what you would be saying in the Parks Canada workgroup if you sold vacuum cleaners ?

 

And what do you do when you're not caching? (personally I'm a full time student trying to get in to veterinary medicine). Do you have skills outside of caching that might be of a benefit to parks Canada? Would you be willing to offer those services freely to help out should they be required? I am. Which is why I mentioned it. Does that make my opinion biased?? You seem to be implying that because I have some expertise outside of caching that I have some alterior motive.

 

As far as my adoption of ibycus as handle goes, yes, it was inspired by my previous choice of Ibycus Software. I chose the name Ibycus Software, because I thought it sounded cool, and the name is barely known by anyone (originally got it skimming a copy of Edith Hamilton's Greek Mythology book, looking for domain names that weren't already taken). Because I thought it was a cool name, as well as a proper noun, when I signed up on gc.com, I thought it would make sense to adopt that as a persona.

 

Other Albertans might not consider you a good representative at all.

 

Could you explain why you feel you should be there in that workgroup ?

I am still awaiting an answer to a similar question I posed to the other Albertan invited ?

Were you also invited because you received an email about your website?

 

The process for me getting involved was as follows:

 

1. Claire contacted a local cacher (not me, it was either Blackjak or graylling, I don't recall which, at the time Blackjak ran our forums, and graylling was the webmaster) looking for a liason between them and the local cachers.

2. They put the request to the open forums.

3. I replied as I had previous experience meeting with Provincial Parks people on numerous occaisions.

4. I was the only one who replied.

 

I have been acting as a liason between PC and the Calgary Area Cachers since that time (this was shortly after the interim policy came out).

Share this post


Link to post
very few 'legal' entities

 

If this work group was reformed with even just one group that represented geocachers legally and included representatives from the commercial listing services then I would have far less reason to object. Even one legal entity that actually does represent geocachers is preferable to the current process, which I view as an unmitigated disaster, this my personal opinion and not meant to represent a "number of geocachers" though it might.

 

I have absolutely no idea which, of the groups involved are official orgs in the legal sense, and which aren't, although something in the back of my mind is telling me that OGA is an official org, I think the BCGA is too.

 

I know CAC and GCE aren't, although collectively I think they 'represent' the largest fraction of active geocachers in this province, and as none of the 'membership' of either of these groups has as far as I know raised *any* objections to either myself, or Brat&Testy being involved in the process I think it relatively safe to say that there aren't any strong objections there. If you'd like, I'd be more than willing to seek endorsement of my role from the local cachers, through an informal poll on the CAC forums. (although they seem to be getting a little sick of my polls in there :D )

Share this post


Link to post

That really made me laugh... the comment that Parks Canada cannot deny a Virtual Cache listing (if VC's were actually still an option)

 

Ask Jeremy about the National Park Service forcing Groundspeak to Archive Virtual Caches in their parks

 

In case you missed it.... you need permission from the land owner to place ANYTHING or ANY TYPE of Cache. That is what the two check boxes are for on the Cache Listing page. Try reading the links there sometime.

 

Even Parks Canada's Interim Policy states

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

 

Funny... Park staff will assist with the messages... sounds to me like they are saying that they will be involved in EVERY Virtual Cache placement.

 

You can claim that these sites are public access, but that same rhetoric espoused here about Listing Services and 'for profit' applies there too. Groundspeak would be making money off of your Virtual Cache listing... it cuts both ways, friend. You cannot list a Virtual Cache and say that Parks Canada has no right to regulate the activity on their own land.

 

One time someone posted "It's okay for my family of four to have a picnic at a Parks Canada park, but I need to get permission to host an Event of 50 or more people"... wonder what the difference is? I know, do you? You guessed it... money! And I don't blame them one bit. If I take over a whole pavilion then I better rent it.

 

And if a tour group wants to charge for a tour, you can bet they pay the local park a fee for the access. So, to think that a "For Profit Corporation" can run unregulated is laughable.

 

Here's reality for you... Parks Canada determines that a Virtual Cache listing didn't get approval... they complain to Groundspeak... $10 says it gets Archived... that has been Jeremy's response in the past with any Park that takes issue with ANY Listing, Virtual Cache included.

 

:anicute: The Blue Quasa

Share this post


Link to post

That really made me laugh... the comment that Parks Canada cannot deny a Virtual Cache listing (if VC's were actually still an option)

 

Ask Jeremy about the National Park Service forcing Groundspeak to Archive Virtual Caches in their parks

 

In case you missed it.... you need permission from the land owner to place ANYTHING or ANY TYPE of Cache. That is what the two check boxes are for on the Cache Listing page. Try reading the links there sometime.

 

Even Parks Canada's Interim Policy states

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

You cannot list a Virtual Cache and say that Parks Canada has no right to regulate the activity on their own land.

 

Here's reality for you... Parks Canada determines that a Virtual Cache listing didn't get approval... they complain to Groundspeak... $10 says it gets Archived... that has been Jeremy's response in the past with any Park that takes issue with ANY Listing, Virtual Cache included.

 

:anicute: The Blue Quasa

That's Jeremy's preogative to remove whatever he wants from his site (he's probably just trying to keep good relations with parks). But it is still not illegal.

 

(I can guarantee you that Waymarks in US National Parks will not be removed. And they're just Virtual Caches under a different name.)

 

Nothing is "placed" with a virtual cache. It's simply a set of coordinates. You can feel free to believe whatever bunk you wish, but there's nothing legally that Parks Canada can do about publishing coordinates to any location in any park. The onus on reaching those locations (or not) falls squarely in the person trying to do so, not on the person listing them.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Nothing is "placed" with a virtual cache. It's simply a set of coordinates. You can feel free to believe whatever bunk you wish, but there's nothing legally that Parks Canada can do about publishing coordinates to any location in any park. The onus on reaching those locations (or not) falls squarely in the person trying to do so, not on the person listing them.

Nice twist on what was said by Blue Quasar. All he said was that they can regulate activities on their land. And they can by ACT and by REGULATION. I suggest you read those because those are the applicable laws in Canada. US laws do not cover our parks so what happens in the US NPS is of no concern here.

 

Can they force no posting of coordinates? Of course not, but that is not the point. If any listing service did not accept any landowners request for a cache to be archived you can bet that caching would be banned completely. So, of course, the listing service will archive that cache.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post
we don't have any official membership
No one purports (myself least of all) to represent CAC or GCE or anything of the sort

 

So who is we ?

Ibycus Software ?

 

Your continual assertion that you represent someone other than yourself through the use of the word we is confusing to me and I imagine other Albertans who want to know why you were invited.

 

The Societies Act says nothing about a "lack of strong objections" in determinig direction from the membership but does note members have rights, votes and are represented legally when they are members of an organization, association or society.

Your standing in the workgroup appears to be as an invited individual, you cannot claim any other role.

This is extremely important issue for all Albertans.

This is not a simple matter like ownership of a club coin.

I don't understand who "we" is but I do know that you want the Parks service to use your software. I do not view the fact that you volunteered with favour given the very commercial nature of your geocaching name and website. Your preference for a solution involving your software is not a positive development. Your disavowal of the CAC may indicate a willingness to to advance your personal position to the detriment of the CAC and geocaching. This is about geocaching in the parks, it should not be an opportunity to market software, even if it is free.

Your total support for Groundspeak's position (those reviewers are just individuals) is also suspect given your commercial posture.

As a taxpayer I do not want to read the fine print under your words.

I am noting these objections so that they are part of the record and acknowledge that they may not register as objections.

And what do you do when you're not caching?

I view the fact that you do not know what I do for a living as a very positive thing, what I do for a living has nothing to do with having fun geocaching and I feel no need to impress anyone with those details.

Share this post


Link to post
we don't have any official membership
No one purports (myself least of all) to represent CAC or GCE or anything of the sort

 

So who is we ?

Ibycus Software ?

 

Your continual assertion that you represent someone other than yourself through the use of the word we is confusing to me and I imagine other Albertans who want to know why you were invited.

 

Its the royal we, as in "We are not amused". No seriously we're not. :anicute:. I've told you exactly how I got involved. I've held nothing back and you know exactly what going on. But apparently I need to spell it out for you. The we I'm refering to is the collective impression I've had from spending *far* too long in the CAC forums and at events and talking with other geocachers.

 

The Societies Act says nothing about a "lack of strong objections" in determinig direction from the membership but does note members have rights, votes and are represented legally when they are members of an organization, association or society.

 

As there is no membership in CAC or GCE, the two primary geocaching groups within Alberta, your argument doesn't hold water. Or do you propose that anyone not a member of GAS should have no voice in this, or perhaps you wish to impose an organizational structure on CAC and GCE that has been repeatedly refused by those whom it would have impact on?

 

Your standing in the workgroup appears to be as an invited individual, you cannot claim any other role.

 

That is exactly the role I do claim and no other, but in my extensive experience in the CAC forums, I like to think I have some idea I know what the average CACer wants.

 

This is extremely important issue for all Albertans.

This is not a simple matter like ownership of a club coin.

I don't understand who "we" is but I do know that you want the Parks service to use your software. I do not view the fact that you volunteered with favour given the very commercial nature of your geocaching name and website.

 

I really don't give a rats a** if they use code I write or not. If I can help by VOLUNTEERING my expertise, I will. What on EARTH do I stand to gain by it? Lots of late hours up coding is about all I can see.

 

Your preference for a solution involving your software is not a positive development.

 

Who ever said that I would prefer it? Sure it would be nice if Groundspeak would do it, but then again a lot of things would be nice too. If the report you suggested is required, and Groundspeak isn't willing, then I'm willing, and the report can get done with or without their help. My whole point is, that their cooperation on this isn't even remotely required.

 

Your disavowal of the CAC may indicate a willingness to to advance your personal position to the detriment of the CAC and geocaching. This is about geocaching in the parks, it should not be an opportunity to market software, even if it is free.

Your total support for Groundspeak's position (those reviewers are just individuals) is also suspect given your commercial posture.

As a taxpayer I do not want to read the fine print under your words.

I am noting these objections so that they are part of the record and acknowledge that they may not register as objections.

 

Let me make this absolutely clear. I have no expectation of any finacial gain out of anything I do for Parks Canada. I have repeatedly stressed that this would be done completely without cost to them, but you have chosen to completely ignore that fact.

 

And what do you do when you're not caching?

I view the fact that you do not know what I do for a living as a very positive thing, what I do for a living has nothing to do with having fun geocaching and I feel no need to impress anyone with those details.

 

My point exactly. Everyone does something outside of geocaching. (with the possible exception of a few lucky retired folks). Everyone makes money doing something. I happen to be a more than competant coder. The fact that I'm willing to lend that expertise should it be required shouldn't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your post JD, and yes I will be voicing my opinion as well. I have a background with dealing with the Gov. I have been on our local executive for a wildlife group, and I will be going in with all my experience I have gained over the years. I have studyed on ESA's, including riparian zones and breading areas of some animals. I have most of my experience in fisheries, but land issues fall right into this area. Most people do not realize that even 1 rock moved in a riparian zone can destroy or impeede a fish breeding area. So IMHO, I will not be just helping with the caching side of this, but the enviroment side as well.

 

Also, in respect to another post about ibycus giving software to PC to ease the implementation of caching in the parks..... I can't see this as it would ever happen. I have seen prinouts from the Nat. Gov.'s GIS system and it would blow anything away that anyone here can produce. If anyone here can get real time top-notch satalite photos and overlay them in a GIS program, then they might be close. lol I have seen a few of these done up for conservation easements in the last few months. I only wish I had that kind of data for my outdoor activities. lol

 

Also, in respect with yet another post about having a registered orginization involved. I beleave there just might already be a few involved at this time. As the last release states that there are other NGO's that are stakehloders in this policy. I would like to know who there are just as much as I do, but until it gets released, no one will know. And for a geocaching group that is registered as a NGO, our local groups will be meeting within the month to get the ball rolling. We have been trying to get something together for a few months now, but have not had enough membership in our group to even start. I did not want to start the process with 10 people, as some groups did and just have it fall apart after a month or so. So hopefully within a couple of months, an executive will be in place, and hopefully it will not be me doing the media / PR thing as this constant bickering about nothing is starting to make me wonder who some of these people are behind these posts. Im not saying that all the post in this forum are going down hill, as some people have legitimate questions, but come on now....... clean it up a bit. In 2 or 3 years down the road when someone is looking at these posts for knowledge, there are going to be a few fools that are going to stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Owen

parker2

Edited by parker2

Share this post


Link to post

Can they force no posting of coordinates? Of course not, but that is not the point. If any listing service did not accept any landowners request for a cache to be archived you can bet that caching would be banned completely. So, of course, the listing service will archive that cache.

What are these listing services you speak of?

 

I can go create several waymarks that are on Parks Canada land right now. I assure you, even if Parks Canada objects, they will not be removed. Why? Because they aren't illegal. Nor do they fall within the privy of the Parks Act. (Feel free to quote me the Parks Act where the listing of park coordinates by 3rd parties is something they can control and regulate.)

Share this post


Link to post
there is no membership in CAC or GCE, the two primary geocaching groups within Alberta

My point exactly.

 

As there is no membership in Alberta, there should be no one from this province on that workgroup.

I have said that any individual representing a legally established geocaching group is representing geocachers and should be on that workgroup. All the commerical listing services should be on the group so that Industry is fairly represented. If alternative listing services to Groundspeak are not invited to the workgroup the policy will almost certainly fail and a complete ban will be the result, that is my opinion.

 

Everyone else "claiming" or "volunteering" to represent the interests of geocachers is unsuitable to help determine this policy, that includes everyone from this province, that is my opinion.

 

I know you don't give a <what you said> and I consider the presence of the Albertans on this workgroup a waste of my tax dollars. They have no reason to be there, they have no special expertise, they represent no one.

Please do not claim your chat site experience qualifies you in some way because I do not believe it does.

 

Let me repeat this objection.

Your total support for Groundspeak's position (those reviewers are just individuals) is also suspect given your commercial posture.

 

These comments are not intended to amuse you, they are intended to establish my objection to the process, the results so far and the views you are expressing through your participation. I am a geocacher, an Albertan and a taxpayer and I have as much right to object as others do to express approval.

 

If Groundspeak stops listing geocaches in the Parks I would consider that an entirely different result than the Parks banning geocaching, the former is entirely acceptable to me. Other listing services can list caches in parks if geocaching is not banned.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What are these listing services you speak of?

 

I can go create several waymarks that are on Parks Canada land right now. I assure you, even if Parks Canada objects, they will not be removed. Why? Because they aren't illegal. Nor do they fall within the privy of the Parks Act. (Feel free to quote me the Parks Act where the listing of park coordinates by 3rd parties is something they can control and regulate.)

 

Wow.... that was a mouth full..... I wonder if there is some sort of hidden agenda that you might have? Hopefully it will not be to cause any ill effects on the enviroment. I bet that if you put up a waymark to a fed. prision. and someone got shot.... I would almost put money that you would get seued at the least for tha damages that you caused. :anicute: I guess that is why GC.com & Groundspeak have a disclaimer. I wonder what PC would do? I guess that will be something that will be brought up in the making of the policy. :huh: I know at this time, all forms of phyisical caching are not allowed, and virtuals now known as Waymarking, have to be approved by PC prior to placement (please review the copy of the interm policy that you have). So where does that leave you? Hopefully not trying to send someone into a bear den. lol So let me see a waypoint that you create, that is active on PC land, and I will make sure it is archived. I do not want to see any one or thing get hurt to a poor cache placement, and I would bet that every other cacher that has a bit of sence would say the same thing.

 

parker2

Edited by parker2

Share this post


Link to post

I bet that if you put up a waymark to a fed. prision. and someone got shot.... I would almost put money that you would get seued at the least for the damages that you caused.

I would take that bet. I wouldn't be at all responsible for the idiot that put themselves in a position to be shot. If I give the coordinates for a 7-11, I'm certainly not responsible if the person using the coordinates robbed the 7-11.

 

I know at this time, all forms of phyisical caching are not allowed, and virtuals now known as Waymarking, have to be approved by PC prior to placement.

We do not PLACE waymarks (or virtual caches). There is nothing at all to be placed. We simply list coordinates. Parks Canada can create as much internal interim policy as they want concerning virtual caches and waymarks, they cannot regulate the listing of coordinates. There is nothing at all illegal about telling someone about an interesting spot in a National Park using a coordinate system.

 

Why is this so hard to understand for so many of you?

 

I have no agenda (so please don't twist the conversation in that direction). I simply started discussing this after someone gave incorrect information on the nature of virtual caches (waymarks) with respect to Parks Canada.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Is the use of your geocaching.com ID and persona to sell software deliberate ?

http://www.ibycus.com

I wonder what you would be saying in the Parks Canada workgroup if you sold vacuum cleaners ?

 

Other Albertans might not consider you a good representative at all.

 

Could you explain why you feel you should be there in that workgroup ?

I am still awaiting an answer to a similar question I posed to the other Albertan invited ?

Were you also invited because you received an email about your website?

 

This particular line of questioning has been asked and answered by Ibycus and its repetition constitutes a personal attack. Subject closed.

 

Ibycus ... if you can't use quote tags without making a huge mess, then please don't use them at all.

 

This is the second time you've mentioned this. Please be advised that the forum software "breaks" if more than ten quote commands appear in a post. It is not the user's fault. This is documented elsewhere in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

[group that represented geocachers legally

I would be interested in your definition of 'legally'. Simply creating an organization does not make it a legal representative. If its registered it makes it a egal tax entity (taxable, or non-profit, or charitable organization) but not a legal representative of anyone.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

We do not PLACE waymarks (or virtual caches). There is nothing at all to be placed. We simply list coordinates. Parks Canada can create as much internal interim policy as they want concerning virtual caches and waymarks, they cannot regulate the listing of coordinates. There is nothing at all illegal about telling someone about an interesting spot in a National Park using a coordinate system.

 

Well actually there is, its in the Criminal Code of Canada. If you encourage somebody to break a law then you are in fact breaking the law. So, since the policy says virtuals must be in specific spots (on the trails), and that policy is consituted under the Regulations based on an Act of Parliament (which is a law afterall) posting a waymark or a virtual that is not in keeping with the policy is encouraging someone to break the law.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

We do not PLACE waymarks (or virtual caches). There is nothing at all to be placed. We simply list coordinates. Parks Canada can create as much internal interim policy as they want concerning virtual caches and waymarks, they cannot regulate the listing of coordinates. There is nothing at all illegal about telling someone about an interesting spot in a National Park using a coordinate system.

Well actually there is, its in the Criminal Code of Canada. If you encourage somebody to break a law then you are in fact breaking the law. So, since the policy says virtuals must be in specific spots (on the trails), and that policy is consituted under the Regulations based on an Act of Parliament (which is a law afterall) posting a waymark or a virtual that is not in keeping with the policy is encouraging someone to break the law.

You of course mistake the interim policy for law. Which it is not.

 

And posting coordinates in no way is an invitation to law breaking.

 

You're an awfully confused fellow. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

You of course mistake the interim policy for law. Which it is not.

 

And posting coordinates in no way is an invitation to law breaking.

I am always amazed how you do not read the entire post. The policy is not law, but it is based on the ACT and the accompanying REGULATIONS. They are law. If you violate any policy in the Parks you will find that your are in turn violating the section(s) of the law it is based on. Think for a minute. How else can they enforce the policy? So, break the policy, violate the postings in each Park (they are there now) and you violate the law.

 

Posting of the coordinates could very easily be seen as supporting and aiding the breaking of the law. If you read the Criminal Code you will find that section (about supporting breaking of a law, that section isn't and doesn't have to be more specific than that). Any action by an individual that encourages, aides, counsels, or abets breaking of law is an illegal act in and of itself.

 

Oh, and if you check the Parks Act and the regulations you will see that the Parks can take action against any 'nuisance' to the parks. (Quotes for the law's words). So, if a person persists in aiding and encouraging a violation of the policy then that person could be interpreted as a nuisance under that act. So you really have two pieces of legislation countering your point.

You're an awfully confused fellow. :smile:

Nope, I'm not. I've done this for 26 years, reading, interpreting, and acting upon the laws of the land. I've had a current copy of the Criminal Code of Canada on my desk for 26 years because I have to know it for my work (oh, and it has to be the current up to date volume since the numbering and section codes change with every act of pariliament). I would invite you to learn about the legal system and how it really works and then determine who it is who is confused.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post
This particular line of questioning has been asked and answered by Ibycus and its repetition constitutes a personal attack. Subject closed.

 

Is the use of your geocaching.com ID and persona to sell software deliberate ?

http://www.ibycus.com

I wonder what you would be saying in the Parks Canada workgroup if you sold vacuum cleaners ?

 

Other Albertans might not consider you a good representative at all.

 

Could you explain why you feel you should be there in that workgroup ?

I am still awaiting an answer to a similar question I posed to the other Albertan invited ?

Were you also invited because you received an email about your website?

 

I am going to presume you are clearing all five lines lines of questioning.

I am still allowed to ask questions ? :smile:

 

Is there any person posting on this thread who is actually acting on behalf of Parks Canada or the Park Service that has failed to identify themselves in that role ?

I would like to know why you have invited website operators and chat site participants to a Parks Canada workgroup on geocaching ?

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify which Provinces had no associations ?

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify other geocache listing services that might have different concerns, solutions and participants ?

Was Groundspeak invited to participate officially and did they decline ?

Why were other listing services excluded ?

In my case, I am from Alberta and there are no legal associations of geocachers in this province, is Parks Canada and the team leader responsible for this process aware that there are no associations of geocachers in Alberta ?

Was any effort beyond sending email to a website, used by Parks Canada to make the Alberta selections ?

I also want to ask Parks Canada why groups like the East Kootenay Cachers were excluded ?

Was a list made of groups that would not get invited or were groups excluded through oversight ?

Is Parks Canada aware of the very fluid nature of geocaching and the tremendous rate of growth ?

Were open door sessions considered ?

Why did web site operators and chat site participants get invited and those geocachers who had previously placed caches in National Parks get excluded ?

Was there some particular reason Parks Canada decided to exclude those who could explain the impacts and effects of the cache they had previously placed ?

 

I geocache in Alberta and have voiced specific objections to those who have been invited from Alberta. I am objecting as a taxpayer, they have no qualifications at all, none, my money is being wasted.

I am just making remarks for the record. Many of these remarks will never buttress actual real letters to a politician.

And I am sure I have said enough. I can say bump can't I.

Bump! :smile:

If you listen to everything I have written backwards I am actually saying geocaching is fun.

Edited by wavector

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am going to presume you are clearing all five lines lines of questioning.

I am still allowed to ask questions ?

 

Nope. Of course not :blink: Your question asking priviledges have been revoked.

 

Actually I think I answered all of those questions, that you quoted prior to Keystone responding. As to the other questions you've asked, I'll take a look at them tonight, right now, I have to run to class.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Could you explain why you feel you should be there in that workgroup ?

I am still awaiting an answer to a similar question I posed to the other Albertan invited ?

Were you also invited because you received an email about your website?

 

Ok with this one, I feel that with my geocaching background and on going work with in the Wildlife Fed. , I beleave that I will be an asset in the making of the policy. I was asked by PC to be part of the workgroup in the fall, after sending quite a few emails on the subject. I'm not too sure what PC was looking for when making the workgroup, but from chatting with the group, I beleave that they have made some great choices.

 

Is there any person posting on this thread who is actually acting on behalf of Parks Canada or the Park Service that has failed to identify themselves in that role ?

 

Yes, PC is watching in the forums, but not adding any content.

 

I would like to know why you have invited website operators and chat site participants to a Parks Canada workgroup on geocaching ?

 

?????? I guess this question is not for me... but I do not know of anybody besides Canadian Geocachers that have a love for the game that have been invited to join the workgroup.... well with a few exceptions.... Like a few NGO's (I do not even know who they are yet)

 

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify which Provinces had no associations ?

 

Yes/ and No... but this has nothing to do with the making of the policy. If I remember right, there might of been an issue finding someone from Quebec, but I'm not too sure. I think every prov. already has a group / org. in place.

 

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify other geocache listing services that might have different concerns, solutions and participants ?

 

I'm not sure with this either, but I do know that there was extensive work on there part in locating geocaching info. from around the world. Along with this, I'm not too sure if PC received anything from any of them during the public consultation period.

 

Was Groundspeak invited to participate officially and did they decline ?

 

Groundspeak and Geocaching.com would of never been asked as it is an American based company there for can not have any input into any policy making.

 

Why were other listing services excluded ?

 

I have no idea.... but I do not think anyone was excluded from the public consultation period.

 

In my case, I am from Alberta and there are no legal associations of geocachers in this province, is Parks Canada and the team leader responsible for this process aware that there are no associations of geocachers in Alberta ?

 

Same here, I do to know.... but it don't matter as IMHO, the policy will be made with the data the each workgroup member passes on to the PC workgroup. PC is making this policy, the workgroup is just helping with input and knowledge. The final say will be in PC's court.... not ours.

 

{quote]Was any effort beyond sending email to a website, used by Parks Canada to make the Alberta selections ?

 

What kind of question is this? I beleave PC made a choice to pick a few public people to help out with the making of the policy. enough said.

 

I also want to ask Parks Canada why groups like the East Kootenay Cachers were excluded ?

Was a list made of groups that would not get invited or were groups excluded through oversight ?

 

No one was excluded. IMHO, PC picked a few of the geocachers that were interested in the policy.

 

Is Parks Canada aware of the very fluid nature of geocaching and the tremendous rate of growth ?

Were open door sessions considered ?

 

I beleave so, that is why the interm policy was made.... don't you think?

 

Why did web site operators and chat site participants get invited and those geocachers who had previously placed caches in National Parks get excluded ?

Was there some particular reason Parks Canada decided to exclude those who could explain the impacts and effects of the cache they had previously placed ?

 

No idea, maybe they did not want to be participants in the policy for all I know. Could be possible that they could not be found. Could be possible that they had no input. Who Knows. I do know that I am in contact with the members that had / have caches placed in our Prov.

 

I geocache in Alberta and have voiced specific objections to those who have been invited from Alberta. I am objecting as a taxpayer, they have no qualifications at all, none, my money is being wasted.

I am just making remarks for the record. Many of these remarks will never buttress actual real letters to a politician.

And I am sure I have said enough. I can say bump can't I.

Bump! :P

If you listen to everything I have written backwards I am actually saying geocaching is fun.

 

Well as a taxpayer, I beleave everyone in the workgroups have the qualifications (IF NOT MORE...) to make this policy. But that is YOUR opinion and YOU are welcome to YOUR OWN opinion. Some other cachers might share YOUR opinion, but I would bet that a majority (as seen from all the forums ... here and in the groups) either is 100% for the way things are going or are involve within the prov. groups.

 

Ok that was IMHO, the best answers I could give being not from PC. I could be wrong on a few, but I made my best guess. Now if you are looking for an answer from PC, please visit there web site and go to the geocaching page. There you might be able to get your answers. :P

 

sorry for the QUOTE thing i was having issues :P

 

parker2

Share this post


Link to post

I'll answer what I KNOW the answer to in Italics, and not answer what I am not sure of.

 

I am still allowed to ask questions ?

Of course

 

Is there any person posting on this thread who is actually acting on behalf of Parks Canada or the Park Service that has failed to identify themselves in that role ?

Apart from those Geocachers that are providing input, like myself, not to my knowledge

 

I would like to know why you have invited website operators and chat site participants to a Parks Canada workgroup on geocaching ?

I don't know

 

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify which Provinces had no associations ?

I don't know

 

Did anyone at Parks Canada identify other geocache listing services that might have different concerns, solutions and participants ?

Parks Canada is aware of other listing services, such as Terracaching and Navicache

 

Was Groundspeak invited to participate officially and did they decline ?

I don't know

 

Why were other listing services excluded ?

I don't know

 

In my case, I am from Alberta and there are no legal associations of geocachers in this province, is Parks Canada and the team leader responsible for this process aware that there are no associations of geocachers in Alberta ?

This question of "legal associations" has not been clarified, and as such cannot be answered

 

Was any effort beyond sending email to a website, used by Parks Canada to make the Alberta selections ?

Not to my knowledge. According to Parks Canada, 'only' content from the public input via email was considered for input

 

I also want to ask Parks Canada why groups like the East Kootenay Cachers were excluded ?

I don't know

 

Was a list made of groups that would not get invited or were groups excluded through oversight ?

I don't know

 

Is Parks Canada aware of the very fluid nature of geocaching and the tremendous rate of growth ?

Yes, it was discussed during the meeting that OGA attended

 

Were open door sessions considered ?

I don't know

 

Why did web site operators and chat site participants get invited and those geocachers who had previously placed caches in National Parks get excluded ?

I don't know

 

Was there some particular reason Parks Canada decided to exclude those who could explain the impacts and effects of the cache they had previously placed ?

If this relates to the previous question then I don't know. If you mean as a general question then I consider myself capable of speaking on this issue

 

Hope that helps

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

OGA is registered with the government and has a valid Vendor Permit to operate as a non-profit or not-for-profit entity ( I don't remember which one ). All of the rules and requirements of that are observed by OGA.

 

I am in no position to determine if that makes OGA a 'legal entity' or not. But we were chosen by Parks Canada for reasons of their choosing.

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

OGA is registered with the government and has a valid Vendor Permit to operate as a non-profit or not-for-profit entity ( I don't remember which one ). All of the rules and requirements of that are observed by OGA.

 

I am in no position to determine if that makes OGA a 'legal entity' or not. But we were chosen by Parks Canada for reasons of their choosing.

 

:P The Blue Quasar

That makes the OGA a legal entity for taxation purposes only. Wavector keeps talking about legal representation. However, legal representation has to be conferred by specific statute. For example, labour unions are legal representatives because they are designated so under labour relations laws with specific mechanisms in place to become legal representatives. Representatives under the public trustee act etc. are also laid out. However, Associations like the OGA are not entities for legal representation so I'm afraid Wavector will never actually have that.

 

However, I have full and complete confidence in you (BQ) to represent the interests of we geocachers in Ontario well and competently and I am very glad you were selected. Thank You! :P

 

JDandDD

Edited by JDandDD

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...