Jump to content

GeoHypocrisy


trackinthebox
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

ANOTHER cache with permission DEMANDED where none is required?

 

US Forest Service Service Lands to be specific this time.

 

Only one site in PA with a listed policy and THIS is it's policy: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/...ion/geocaching/

 

So now we have reviewers making up their OWN laws as they go?

 

Well it comes down to this.

 

Geocaching started what, about a half dozen years back right?

 

As an UNDERGROUND hobby right?

 

So now it has turned into this HUGE Money Making Machine that on one hand forbids placing a cache on certain "sacred" Federal lands but freely allows and even encourages dumping GeoJunk all over Wal*Mart, Kmart, Lowes and Home Depot parking lots and get this, Public Cemeteries on the other!!

 

So dont place a cache near Bambi but load the kids into the SUV on Sunday and dump em off on Aunt Bea's fresh earth covered face?!

 

Don't put a cache in public forest but a back yard is fair game?

 

Reviewers make issue with taxpayer paid for lands but no issue whatsoever with private property or truly sacred lands, public cemeteries?

 

GeoHypocrisy to the extreme!!

 

So we have the "well meaning" Cachestone Cops from Hickstown, PA spewing this self righteous Geo-Con tripe in my face since DAY ONE here at geocaching.com. Well I'm fixin' to do somethin bout it thar Zeke.

 

When I'm done, count on caches being PERMISSION ONLY or BANNED at store parking lots, which by the way are PRIVATE PROPERTY unlike Federal lands which are TAXPAYER PAID PROPERTIES.

 

Cemeteries? Forget about em. I know reporters that are going to have an ABSOLUTE FIELD DAY with that one! Nobody is going to want GPS toting geeks walking all over their dead families and friends faces when I'm done.

 

The Department of Cacheland Security couldn't leave well enough alone but this time you picked the wrong toes to step on there Sonny Jim.

 

You peed in this boy's Cheerios once too often so I'd advise you to be on the lookout for that Roto Rooter Truck backing down your driveway. It'll be dumping it's contents through the kitchen window into YOUR Cheerios.

Link to comment

I have never seen someone so upset because they disagree with a guideline and **gasp** didn't get a cache approved. The horror, the injustice! It's a massive government conspiracy (probably backed by the Republicans) to screw over trackinthebox.

 

This is OT, but can someone please tell me how to ignore a user? I can't seem to figure it out, since I've never felt the need to before now.

Link to comment

The OP is not thrilled with the guidelines and thinks his caches should be published regardless. He had an extensive rant over in the Northeast Forums on the subject.

 

My advice to Mr Trackinthebox is to grow up and act like a man instead of a 2 year old.

 

Hundreds, if not thousands of caches are listed by this site every week. They are listed regardless if the placer has been at this sport for 3 days or 3 years, as long as they conform to the guidelines. Reviewers are here to publish caches that meet the guidelines. They want to publish caches. They like to publish caches. They are geocachers too and the more caches they publish means the the more caches they have to find.

 

If you disagree with the decision of a reviewer you can deal with it two ways. You can rant like a spoiled child, or open a dialog with the reivewer to see what can be done to get the cache listed. If you are still not satisfied there are channels for appeals.

Link to comment

This is OT, but can someone please tell me how to ignore a user? I can't seem to figure it out, since I've never felt the need to before now.

Click on My Controls at the top of the page. Then click on Manage Ignored Users on the left side of the screen. Type trackinthebox under Add New Users to Your List and then click Update Ignored Users at the bottom.

Link to comment

:laughing: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :unsure:

 

(Edited by moderator)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

The guy finds verified information contrary to what he has been told. Let him have his rant, it doesn't matter how many finds he has. And the best way to ignore someone is to not respond.

 

Thank you.

 

And this information comes from the landowner in question, not some overzealous reviewer.

 

If you think you have a case there are avenues to pursue other than engaging in a diatribe and threats. They are listed in the guidelines. You really should read them.

Link to comment

:laughing: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :unsure:

 

I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

Are you trying to tell us that you are upset about something? Or is this your way of making new friends and influencing people?

 

On other thing....someone actually peed in your Cheerios? :laughing:

 

El Diablo

 

He already made plenty of friends in the Northeast forum :unsure: You know Track, you probably are correct, there are no restrictions other than the ones the reviewers are placing on the lands. You could always drop a Terracache or Navicache. There is a small number of people in NEPA that use both those sites (which can't be said for all areas of the U.S.).

Link to comment

 

There are NO restrictions on these lands other than the ones the reviewers are placing on them.

Relax - take a deep cleansing breath. Feel better.

 

Now - can you actualy share some details and some co-ordinates so that we can all form a better response to your pain riddled posting.

 

Mind you, I have great faith and trust in the reviewers but it will make for a better discussion if we know a bit more....

Link to comment

:unsure: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :laughing:

 

I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

Maybe there has been a policy change that hasn't yet made its way to teh reviewers?

 

Maybe teh OP is conveniently leaving out certain bits of information? THAT has never happened here before.

 

If the former, a little civility from teh OP would have been nice. :lol:

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

:laughing: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands?

 

There are NO restrictions on these lands other than the ones the reviewers are placing on them.

Maybe I missed something, but what EXACTLY did the reviewer say you could not do?

Link to comment

 

There are NO restrictions on these lands other than the ones the reviewers are placing on them.

Relax - take a deep cleansing breath. Feel better.

 

Now - can you actualy share some details and some co-ordinates so that we can all form a better response to your pain riddled posting.

 

Mind you, I have great faith and trust in the reviewers but it will make for a better discussion if we know a bit more....

 

N 41° 19.615 W 074° 49.065

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fa-07be8d262752

 

And it is US Forest Service Land.

 

The PA reviewers have been elitist since the word go and I have had to do their job for them in a few cases although I'm not even a reviewer.

 

They provoked this response as I am normally a calm person. I refuse to accept bias however and now they are refusing this cache in revenge for me making waves.

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

:unsure: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :laughing:

 

I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

Maybe there has been a policy change that hasn't yet made its way to teh reviewers?

 

Maybe teh OP is conveniently leaving out certain bits of information? THAT has never happened here before.

 

If the former, a little civility from teh OP would have been nice. :lol:

 

A little forum drama never killed anyone, present company excluded, of course.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

:laughing: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :unsure:

 

I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

 

I don't know the issues here, but for arguments sake, lets say the OP is right and the reviewer is wrong. His reaction is still unacceptable.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

 

Maybe teh OP is conveniently leaving out certain bits of information? THAT has never happened here before.

 

Two gold stars for hitting the nail on the head.

 

I know the tendency in these kind of threads (ones with high :laughing: involved) but I'd like to remind everyone to be civil in their dialogue in this thread. That goes for the OP and anyone else wanting to participate.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

:laughing: Holy smokes - lighten up! You don't like the park restrictions, find another location. Those are put there for preservation of our park systems, for ALL to enjoy - not just geocachers. There are plenty of other locations such as city parks for instance - that you could find to place to put a cache. Get creative, look up local public hiking trails in your area and put one there for instance. So you really want to put one on the restricted lands? File the needed form and quit yer (complaining). :unsure: awaiting your reply :unsure:

 

I think he was being creative and the website implies that geocaching is permitted and outlines where it is not. So when the land manager states "Geo-caching is a permissible dispersed recreation activity on most areas of the Allegheny National Forest" but says "Areas where geo-caching is not permitted include: Hickory Creek and Allegheny Islands Wilderness; Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Areas; Hearts Content Scenic Area and all developed recreation sites" and the cache follows that then why should it be denied?

 

I don't know the issues here, but for arguments sake, lets say the OP is right and the reviewer is wrong. His reaction is still unacceptable.

 

Well then by all means APPENGE him then. People have banned for less, it not like he's writing poetry or something.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

I don't know the issues here, but for arguments sake, lets say the OP is right and the reviewer is wrong. His reaction is still unacceptable.

 

What is unacceptable is elitism and revenge for me making waves over the NPS issue.

 

You are assuming there is elitism and revenge at work here. I assure you there is none. I know the reviewers who are likely involved and they are decent people and dedicated volunteers. They do a tough job and really don't deserve people like you who make their jobs harder, then come here to malign them.

Link to comment

You are assuming there is elitism and revenge at work here. I assure you there is none. I know the reviewers who are likely involved and they are decent people and dedicated volunteers. They do a tough job and really don't deserve people like you who make their jobs harder, then come here to malign them.

 

Please tell me, just how is placing placing a cache in an area where they are allowed or where there is no posted policy making a "tough job harder"?

 

First off, I thought this was a game?

 

It's the excessive permission issue that turns it into a job.

 

I do enough paperwork at my job, I don't need to be subjected to it when I recreate.

 

Especially when it isn't required.

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

OK, I looked it up and read the reviewer's notes.

 

It is National Forest Lands. The OP posted a link to Allegheny Forest Policy, but this isn't Allegheny Forest Property. These policies do not apply.

 

Next issue. Within this National Forest is a little Historic Site. These are the people that need to grant permission. Be warned, they are not geocaching friendly.

 

So, rant and rave if you wish. Permission is still needed.

Link to comment

Wow, there’s so much information that got left out in all the ranting, I really don’t know what’s going on here.

 

If a reviewer is demanding a cache hider get permission to place a cache on Forest Service land (assuming the rules in PA are similar to WA) then the reviewer should be reeducated or fired. However, all the threatening and posturing was a little premature given that the other, more acceptable methods weren’t tried.

 

Now, even if the reviewer in question was completely wrong, nothing will be done about it. From what I know about the folks running this business, none of them will ever give in to threats.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

OK, I looked it up and read the reviewer's notes.

 

It is National Forest Lands. The OP posted a link to Allegheny Forest Policy, but this isn't Allegheny Forest Property. These policies do not apply.

 

Next issue. Within this National Forest is a little Historic Site. These are the people that need to grant permission. Be warned, they are not geocaching friendly.

 

So, rant and rave if you wish. Permission is still needed.

 

Isn't it Allegheny National Forest and therefore part of the US Forest Service (USDA)but with its own local policy?

Link to comment

OK, I looked it up and read the reviewer's notes.

 

It is National Forest Lands. The OP posted a link to Allegheny Forest Policy, but this isn't Allegheny Forest Property. These policies do not apply.

 

Next issue. Within this National Forest is a little Historic Site. These are the people that need to grant permission. Be warned, they are not geocaching friendly.

 

So, rant and rave if you wish. Permission is still needed.

 

The cache is placed WELL away from the building which is the historic site.

 

The cache is on US Forest Service land.

 

As stated in MY reviewer note:

 

I am responsible for my cache's and I can guarantee that there will be no issues with this.

 

I'll put it another way, my Grandfather was a personal friend of Governor Gifford Pinchot. Also, my family assisted with the dedication ceremony at Grey Towers by President Kennedy in 1963. (Easily verified in "When President Kennedy Visited Pike County" by Norman B. Lehde)

 

You have no idea who I am and what you are starting here if this geoharassment continues.

 

In addition, a friend of mine is in the local Wal*Mart management team and would be very "put out" if he was informed of the 2 caches placed there without permission on private property.

 

You make issue with taxpayer paid for lands but no issue whatsoever with private property?

 

I will not provide written permission for this cache but I WILL guarantee that every local, State and National Wal*MArt, Lowes, and Home Depot, etc. demands written permission for every geocache placed or bans them outright if I continue to be subjected to these unreasonable demands.

 

And that will be just the beginning....

 

So... we can stop with the hazing games and get along or we can continue.

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

Wow, there’s so much information that got left out in all the ranting, I really don’t know what’s going on here.

 

If a reviewer is demanding a cache hider get permission to place a cache on Forest Service land (assuming the rules in PA are similar to WA) then the reviewer should be reeducated or fired. However, all the threatening and posturing was a little premature given that the other, more acceptable methods weren’t tried.

 

Now, even if the reviewer in question was completely wrong, nothing will be done about it. From what I know about the folks running this business, none of them will ever give in to threats.

 

Criminal! I've read alot of your posts! You're somewhat of a geolegend when it comes to issues like this.

 

Nice to meet you.

Link to comment

The listing guidelines OFF LIMITS section makes useful reading

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit

 

OFF LIMITS

 

....

"Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans."

 

You mean like old cemetaries with fragile headstones?

 

:laughing:

 

But I thought it's ok to stomp all over dead people's faces and private property..............

 

Regardless, the house is the historical site, NOT the land away from it.

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

The listing guidelines OFF LIMITS section makes useful reading

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit

 

OFF LIMITS

 

....

"Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans."

 

You mean like old cemetaries with fragile headstones?

 

:laughing:

 

But I thought it's ok to stomp all over dead people's faces and private property..............

 

Um, no. AFAIK, cemetery caches require *gasp* permission! At least nowadays, because of issues like this.

Link to comment

I will not provide written permission for this cache but I WILL guarantee that every local, State and National Wal*MArt, Lowes, and Home Depot, etc. demands written permission for every geocache placed or bans them outright if I continue to be subjected to these unreasonable demands.

 

Thank you for that public service to Geocaching - never much cared for parking lot lampskirt micros anyway.

:laughing::unsure:

 

Back on topic.....

 

At least around here - many historic buildings and areas include quite a large chunk of land around them. In Nebraska, placing a cache on any of these lands is prohibited unless special written permission is obtained.

 

Can you simply move the cache a bit further away and use the cabin in some kind of offset cache? Lot of us do it that way.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

 

N 41° 19.615 W 074° 49.065

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fa-07be8d262752

 

And it is US Forest Service Land.

 

The PA reviewers have been elitist since the word go and I have had to do their job for them in a few cases although I'm not even a reviewer.

 

They provoked this response as I am normally a calm person. I refuse to accept bias however and now they are refusing this cache in revenge for me making waves.

First, those co-ords are not on FS land - they show just off Grey Tower ouside Milford.

 

Second, we can't see the listing until it's posted.

 

As to your civil note to the reviewers, if it were up to me I'd ban you for life, and not care who your ancestors were or what they did (one of mine came over on the Mayflower, does that make me special?). Threats are not appreciated or needed/wanted in this (or any) game. Remember, IT IS JUST A GAME!

Link to comment

This responce will surely get lost in the suffle, but trackinthebox (although misguided) is right about our willingness to grant permission to WalMart Caches. I doubt they have permission, and as he pointed out, it is private property.

 

Of course that does nothing for his other arguement.

Link to comment

 

Not threats, just facts as to what is going to take place because of this continuing bias.

Explain Bias???

 

I have hidden over 100 caches and I am quite certain I would have been asked for permission to place at this spot as well.

 

Where is the cache at? in the gardens? On the property elsewhere? Please give some more details here - container? method of hide?

 

This IS a National Historic site so I can understand the hesitation to list.

Link to comment

This responce will surely get lost in the suffle, but trackinthebox (although misguided) is right about our willingness to grant permission to WalMart Caches. I doubt they have permission, and as he pointed out, it is private property.

 

Of course that does nothing for his other arguement.

 

Not lost in the shuffle.

 

And yes, why is private property not an issue when taxpayer paid for lands such a big deal where there is no big deal?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...