Announcing A New Group

[+RakeInTheCache]

This group is dedicated to managing a "Places of Geologic Interest" category as an alternative to the "Earthcaches" category which some waymarkers may find too restrictive in its requirements for placing waymarks.

 

The idea is to focus on geologically interesting locations and drop the requirement to have indiscriminate approval from the land adminstrator while still being environmentally responsible. For example,

 

Waymarks on public land which is already opened to the public and managed for visits to the location of waymark do not need a land manager approval (proof to be submitted by a website). Waymarks on public land which is unimproved for visitors, but otherwise open to unrestricted access by the public are also accepted (website by adminstering authority indicating the area is open to the public as proof). Waymarks on private land will be accepted if access is open to the public and this access is documented via a web site. Waymarks on private or otherwise restricted land will be accepted as long as the place of interest can be viewed from unrestricted public land (for example, road right of way).

 

Also, collecting and removal of any kind of sample from the site will be strenously discouraged.

 

If we get enough takers, I'll flesh out the category a bit more. If you see a problem with this concept, please voice your opinion here (preferable before the category gets to peer review).

 

You can join the group here. Places of Geologic Interest

Edited July 23, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+Miragee]

Cool . . . I'm not a Geologist, so I don't know all the details of some of the cool things I have spotted while out hiking, so this will be a great category.

 

Thanks for creating it.

[+chstress53]

Just note that All National Parks (which is public land that is open to the public) have entered into an agreement with the Geologic Society that only approved Earthcaches are allowed on their lands. Waymarking Categories and waymarks themselves of any description that are developed on public land without prior approval are undesirable, and on some lands completely illegal and subject to consequences.

They did not allow geocaches and now their rules and guidelines require approval of a land manager by the geologic Society before a Category or waymark can be created in any National Park. IT is against their rules not gc.cpms. So I suggest that this be included in your requirments.

 

This is taken from a directive for Americas National Parks as to assist in understanding the question as to why.

"Reliable Data. The National Park Service will ensure that information will be developed from reliable data sources and will otherwise ensure information quality at each stage of information development. The NPS's methods for producing quality information will be made transparent, to the maximum extent practicable, through accurate documentation, use of appropriate internal and external review procedures, consultation with experts and users, and verification of the quality of the information disseminated to the public. The NPS will also keep users informed about corrections and revisions. " They have further rules and specific guidlines that do not allow the creation of Categories and waymarks without the geological Societys input.

 

Like it or not they have partnered with the Geologic Socity and this in place.

 

"If we don't have partnerships, we don't have a park." Increasingly partnerships are becoming an effective means for the National Park Service to fulfill parts of our mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship that is so crucial for the future. "

 

This agency even though you and I have access to these public lands Do not have permission to Create Categories or Waymarks on these lands PERIOD

It is in violation

Edited July 23, 2006 by chstress53

[+chstress53]

It has been suggested that I clarify

 

The agreement/ Partnership is stictly in regard to geologic locations. I am sorry that this was not clear, since the topic is in regards to Geologic locations that is what I was talking about, but the clarification is necessary.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Just note that All National Parks (which is public land that is open to the public) have entered into an agreement with the Geologic Society that only approved Earthcaches are allowed on their lands. Waymarking Categories and waymarks themselves of any description that are developed on public land without prior approval are undesirable, and on some lands completely illegal and subject to consequences.

They did not allow geocaches and now their rules and guidelines require approval of a land manager by the geologic Society before a Category or waymark can be created in any National Park. IT is against their rules not gc.cpms. So I suggest that this be included in your requirments.

 

This is taken from a directive for Americas National Parks as to assist in understanding the question as to why.

"Reliable Data. The National Park Service will ensure that information will be developed from reliable data sources and will otherwise ensure information quality at each stage of information development. The NPS's methods for producing quality information will be made transparent, to the maximum extent practicable, through accurate documentation, use of appropriate internal and external review procedures, consultation with experts and users, and verification of the quality of the information disseminated to the public. The NPS will also keep users informed about corrections and revisions. " They have further rules and specific guidlines that do not allow the creation of Categories and waymarks without the geological Societys input.

 

Like it or not they have partnered with the Geologic Socity and this in place.

 

"If we don't have partnerships, we don't have a park." Increasingly partnerships are becoming an effective means for the National Park Service to fulfill parts of our mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship that is so crucial for the future. "

 

This agency even though you and I have access to these public lands Do not have permission to Create Categories or Waymarks on these lands PERIOD

It is in violation

 

I would like to see this indicated in an official document. I find it completely ridiculous. If this is true, it would seem the next logical step is that taking photos of mountains and showing them to your friends is also illegal. I think this is a worthwhile issue fo the courts to sort out.

 

I completely understand disallowing geocaches as it is obviously human trace, but waymarks have no physical human trace. They are no more damaging than photos of a national park that someone posts on their website with instructions on how to get there.

 

What principal of land conservation does Waymarking violate?

 

Note : Googling NPS and National Parks Service and Waymarking turned up no internet published documents indicating Waymarking a site in an NPS was illegal. Performing a search on Waymarking on the NPS home page also did not turn up any such documents.

 

Note 2 : sent off an e-mail to nps to verify the claim that Waymarking on (some) nps land is illegal.

Edited July 25, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+TerryDad2]

It would seem to be a poor precedent to have the community approve a new category with the express purpose to compete with an existing category just because someone didn’t like the requirements of the existing category.

[+Miragee]

I don't think this Category needs to have any Geologic locations on National Park or National Monument land to be successful.

 

I found some concretions last year in a canyon in an ORV area of the desert near the Salton Sea.

 

That area has been destroyed and devastated by all the ORV activity, so I don't think anyone would care about a Waymark for a "Concretion Geologic Formation."

 

When I was there, I took pictures and got the coords, but by that time, they weren't allowing any more Earthcaches on GC.com so I forgot about it . . . until now.

 

I think someone riding around the area might be interested in seeing those odd formations if they knew where they were.

 

When this category is approved, that is the first Waymark I will list.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Miragee

[+chstress53]

Just a thought Ask the Geologic Society they are the ones who have entered into the agreement with the NPS. ANd I totally agree with TerryDad2 and voted Nay in the Category that is up for review that relates to this.

[+Jake39]

I found some concretions last year in a canyon in an ORV area of the desert near the Salton Sea.

When this category is approved, that is the first Waymark I will list.

Amazing what you learn from "Waymarking" This certainly was a new word for me

----> concretion <----

[+TerryDad2]

I don't think this Category needs to have any Geologic locations on National Park or National Monument land to be successful.

 

I found some concretions last year in a canyon in an ORV area of the desert near the Salton Sea.

 

That area has been destroyed and devastated by all the ORV activity, so I don't think anyone would care about a Waymark for a "Concretion Geologic Formation."

 

When I was there, I took pictures and got the coords, but by that time, they weren't allowing any more Earthcaches on GC.com so I forgot about it . . . until now.

 

I think someone riding around the area might be interested in seeing those odd formations if they knew where they were.

 

When this category is approved, that is the first Waymark I will list.

 

Then why don't you make them an earthcache now?

[+Miragee]

Because the concretions are interesting to me, but I simply don't have the mental stamina to do all the research, write up the description, submit it to the Geologic Society, probably have it rejected because I don't have all the facts correct, etc., etc.

 

I'm just a Geocacher . . . and beginning to become a Waymarker. I'm not a Geologist and don't play one on T.V.

 

I would just like to point people to some interesting "Geologic Features" I have discovered.

 

Since we can have Waymarks on top of other Waymarks, why not have a "Geologic Features" category for dummies like me. You can make the site into an Earthcache when you visit my Waymark.

[+TerryDad2]

Since we can have Waymarks on top of other Waymarks, why not have a "Geologic Features" category for dummies like me. You can make the site into an Earthcache when you visit my Waymark.

Sounds like a plan.

 

I wouldn't mind helping you out with it so you could have both the waymarks

[+chstress53]

Miragee If you were going to submit it as an Earthcache on the other site why not submit it here. The requirments over on that site were the same as they are here. Everything was done through the Geologic Society as they are now done here. I am not a geologist either and the facts only need to be around a 5th grade level. I submitted a volcano I liked as an Earthcache by only researching that particular volcano as an Earthcache. And the people at the geologic Society are very willing to assist in the creation. They suggest what to add or delete. Very nice assistance. If I were you I would attempt to get your location submitted as an Earthcache, it does sound very interesting. Now back on topic, places of geologic Interest to me is way too broad and as it stand it is a redundant Category The criteris to have a Category is :The Waymarking directory contains categories that focus on a specific type of location This Category is not specific enough plus it is a redundant Category. That is why In the Criteria section It clearly states No duplicate Categories are to be Created as the ultimate goal is the integrity of the directory. Now if it were to be more specific like places to see concretions Only as the waterfall Category or the Volcano Category I think would be more relavent.

Edited July 25, 2006 by chstress53

[+Miragee]

I just found the link to the Earthcache site and read the guidelines.

 

This is the paragraph that gets me:

EarthCaches developed on private and public land must have prior approval of the landowners before submission. EarthCaches developed in association with National Parks, National Forests, or other public lands are encouraged. These must have verbal or written approval with the appropriate land-managing agency. The name and contact details of the person from who you received approval MUST be given.

The concretions I found are in the middle of an ORV area administered by the BLM. If people don't need permission to drive their motorcycles and ATVs and Jeeps up and over all the living, and now dead, vegetation in the area , I don't understand why I have to figure out who to contact to get permission to post some coordiates for a few piles of round rocks . . .

 

Sorry . . . it just seems like a ridiculous requirement for this particular location, and probably for many, many other "Geologic Formation" locations.

[+TerryDad2]

Geological Oddities is curretnly up for peer review which also seems to be what your Places of Geologic Interest category is.

 

However submittals to the Geological Oddities category does require scientific background and that requirement was one of your objections.

[+Miragee]

I couldn't see any details of the requirements for that Category when I went to the page. Clicking on one link just brought up my Groups . . .

 

Can you understand why some areas could be excellent Geologic Interest Waymarks, and not Earthcaches, which have the requirement of obtaining permission . . . ?

 

I don't want to be difficult, but that ORV area is so devastated, the requirement for permisison is just silly . . .

[+chstress53]

If I am not mistaken that Categorie Geologic Oddities peer review ended on July 11, and failed. It does not look like it has been submitted again on the page

 

Taken directly from their group page moments ago:

 

Category Status: Your group's category, Geological oddities has been sent to peer review. It will be reviewed by the Waymarking community until 7/11/2006.

 

It does not appear in the directory so my surmise it that this Category failed peer review on July 11..

 

However RakeInTheCache's Group is still accepting memebers and his Category at the top of this thread needs three officers to proced and take it's chances in peer review.

 

I still think you could create a Category for concreations just like the waterfalls Category. Or branch out and fire off an email to the BLM, I bet they say yes and you will have gained a contact and an Earthcache and then work towards you Earthcache Pins.

Edited July 26, 2006 by chstress53

[+nfa]

I'm still stuck on an earlier post suggesting that waymarks might be illegal on NPS land...I don't know how this could be, or what possible damage could be done by waymarks...If I'm allowed to walk there with a camera or with a GPS, then I am capable of Waymarking de facto...and can't see how or why NPS could/would care.

 

jamie - nfa

[+RakeInTheCache]

It would seem to be a poor precedent to have the community approve a new category with the express purpose to compete with an existing category just because someone didn’t like the requirements of the existing category.

 

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood something. The point of this category is not to compete with Earthcaches. There was no suggestion that Earthcaches was not a valuable category in and of itself and that we were going for a popularity contest. The point of the category it to provide waymarkers with the ability to waymark an interesting geological feature in a less restrictive manner than with earthcaches.

 

BTW still no answer from NPS on Waymarking policy. The NPS office of policy's feedback form appears not to be very robust. It comes back with an error message if the message size is over 1 sentence.

Edited July 27, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+RakeInTheCache]

 

It does not appear in the directory so my surmise it that this Category failed peer review on July 11..

 

 

It's possible the category owner didn't yet figure out that a special step is needed to make the category visible in the directory. I know I missed this the first time around.

Edited July 27, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+TerryDad2]

The point of the category it to provide waymarkers with the ability to waymark an interesting geological feature in a less restrictive manner than with earthcaches.

So it is to allow someone to waymark the same feature under the same category concept with fewer parameters and not have the required authorization for US federal land.

 

I don't think this meets the not redundant requirement for categories.

 

Could you help the "Geological Oddities" group refine their category to meet your goals and somehow make it unique enough to be not redundtant to earthcaches?

[+RakeInTheCache]

PGI is a superset of Earthcaches. In that way it admittedly overlaps but is not technically redundant. There are already quite a number of overlapping categories so I don't see how there can be an objection to another one.

 

It looks like Geological oddities failed for whatever reason. The description of their group is not very well developed (maybe one of the reasons it failed). Also, although I can see the group description, I cannot see how I can find the category description, even if I join the group as a member. I will invite the members of Geological oddities ot join the PGI group.

 

BTW : got a response from NPS. The NPS as a whole has no policy on Waymarking. I'm having to educate them about what Waymarking is. It is possible that individual parks do have a policy on Waymarking. My dialogue with NPS continues.

Edited July 30, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+TerryDad2]

BTW : got a response from NPS. The NPS as a whole has no policy on Waymarking. I'm having to educate them about what Waymarking is. It is possible that individual parks do have a policy on Waymarking. My dialogue with NPS continues.

It looks like we are working on the same issue from two angles. I am having a similar discussion with the rangers and Washington Policy folks of the NPS. Currently they are also trying to approve the demonstration puzzle geocache. We'll see what they come up with.

[+RakeInTheCache]

I will create this group with the criteria that waymarks fitting existing very specific geologic categories be excluded. For example, caves, glaciers, hot springs, mountain summits, natural arches, active volcanos, and waterfalls will all be excluded as they already have their own categories, provided these categories are not too restrictive. As new specific categories are created, the overlaps will, of course, be grandfathered but new submissions will need to post in the specific category.

Edited August 7, 2006 by RakeInTheCache