Geocaching Advocacy Group

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

In related threads discussions are underway regarding geocaching on NPS and other restricted lands.

 

I feel that we are missing a proactive approach wherein we have a collective and recognized representative voice to introduce and educate at the national level.

 

Groundspeak as a business may not be the right vehicle for such advocacy, although I think they would be our best asset. Unless I am horribly wrong Groundspeak does not normally get involved in land management advocacy on behalf of geocaching.

 

It is my belief that a coherent presentation and explanation of non-physical caches by a large advocacy group at the national level would open the doors to all public-access parks and lands for the non-physical cache types.

 

I believe that it was the absence of an authoritative organization to provide a clear understanding about what virtuals, earthcaches, waymarks and other non-physical non-intrusive geocaches are that led to the current restrictions on them; not understanding that they are simply a way to locate a publicly accessible place on earth, bureaucrats did what bureaucrats often do, which is to say no.

 

Once no is said it is easy to keep saying it, and easier for others to say.

 

Before virtuals were removed from this site there were some land-owner restrictions on them that made no sense whatsoever - you needed permission to give folks the coordinates of a public monument so they could go read a date? Yet Earthcaches are virtuals, right?

 

For the life of me I cannot explain an aversion to non-physical geocaches on public lands in any other way but lack of understanding.

 

Yes, some areas are off-limits to people, but then they are off-limits to all people.

 

Common sense says that if I can legally go somewhere open to the public and take a picture then I can call the object of the picture a geocache. If I can go there and take a picture without land-owner permission then I can go there, take a picture and list it as a found non-physical geocache without land-owner permission. But common sense does not always prevail.

 

If an area is in fact open to people then it makes no sense whatsoever that non-physical caches would be prohibited. Do waymarks require permission? They are virtuals or earthcaches under another name, right? You go to a public place and look at something, disturb nothing.

 

Non-physical caches are a concept rather than an entity. How and why would you ban or restrict a concept?

 

Keep in mind that I am talking about land-owner permission, not whether Groundspeak would list them or not.

 

So, it is left to geocachers to advocate for geocaching permissions.

 

It is a difficult thing for individuals and unrecognized small groups to effect or change policy at the national level. Even small private landowners may not be comfortable when approached by individuals.

 

In the case of the ongoing NPS Beta Test utilizing earthcaches, these particular folks seem to be doing a wonderful job working with the NPS and I applaud them! But essentially the NPS is regulating the ability for us to look at a place and say "Yup, that's a place alright!" To me this indicates that the NPS still lacks a clear understanding of what an earthcache is.

 

Various groups and state associations are having varying degrees of success with this issue. Many are accomplishing great things; others have lost ground. But, it's all being done by local geocachers with no obvious support.

 

Is it time for geocachers to form a cohesive world-wide advocacy group that can address and educate land managers? Land managers might easily dismiss Joe Blow who asks to place a cache on their land, perhaps doubting his intent or authority, but would find it much harder to dismiss a large, strong organized advocacy group that presents a coherent and unified education and appeal.

 

There is a level of trust and comfort inherent in dealing with an organization that is often absent with the individual.

 

As was mentioned in other threads, once land-owners know the game and no longer see geocaching as a danger they will be much more open to physical caches. However, having an advocacy group might help us avoid the need for such trial periods and non-physical cache limitations altogether.

 

What say you - should we endeavor to form an international advocacy group that would represent the interests of all geocachers and educate land managers?

 

Ed

[+Criminal]

That’s way too many words for my current short attention span, but I f what I skimmed is correct, I will continue to ask permission only where permission is explicitly required.

[+Renegade Knight]

Working on it. There hasn't been a rush of people beating down my doors to help.

[+sammydee]

I'd honestly vote 'no'. I think this sort of advocacy is best done locally. I don't think a County Parks department is going to be interested if an 'international advocacy group' walks in and tries to tell them what to do. But if a bunch of locals show up, they'll be more interested.

 

I do think that strong organization is essential on a local level. We've had a very good group working together here, and have just got the first official geocaching policy from a major land manager in our area. FYI the policy is here.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I'd honestly vote 'no'. I think this sort of advocacy is best done locally. I don't think a County Parks department is going to be interested if an 'international advocacy group' walks in and tries to tell them what to do. But if a bunch of locals show up, they'll be more interested.

 

I do think that strong organization is essential on a local level. We've had a very good group working together here, and have just got the first official geocaching policy from a major land manager in our area. FYI the policy is here.

 

I like the fact that they are not requiring a permit, however those guidelines may actually be illegal. They require all caches to be listed on Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a commercial enterprise. There are several other cache listing sites that may or may not also be commercial enterprises. Those guide lines just gave Groundspeak a monopoly on listing caches in Santa Clara Parks.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'd honestly vote 'no'. I think this sort of advocacy is best done locally. I don't think a County Parks department is going to be interested if an 'international advocacy group' walks in and tries to tell them what to do. But if a bunch of locals show up, they'll be more interested.

 

I do think that strong organization is essential on a local level. We've had a very good group working together here, and have just got the first official geocaching policy from a major land manager in our area. FYI the policy is here.

 

So did your organization "walk in an tell them what to do"? I doubt it. Why then do you think anyone else would?

 

Of course local matters are best done by local folks - that doesn't mean they can't draw from and be supported by a larger group.

 

Ed

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think this sort of advocacy is best done locally. I don't think a County Parks department is going to be interested if an 'international advocacy group' walks in and tries to tell them what to do. But if a bunch of locals show up, they'll be more interested.

 

I do think that strong organization is essential on a local level. We've had a very good group working together here, and have just got the first official geocaching policy from a major land manager in our area. FYI the policy is here.

 

Local agencies do prefer to work with locals. Where it can be done it’s the best way to go. However nobody wants anyone local or not to come in and tell them how to do their job. One reason that locals are favored is that they are more likely to know the people they are dealing with and can adjust any negotiations to that fact. That’s the job of the negotiator. To learn what problem the local is trying to solve which has created a rats nest of rules and regs. Then to help them solve it in a way that’s going to follow the KISS principal for both sides.

 

Still, you may very well be missing out on what a larger organization can do to make your job easier. First if you have never heard of Risk Communications (TAR Should have as he’s related to law enforcement) then you won’t know it’s value until AFTER the local sheriff has responded to some false alarm that was a cache suspected as a bomb. A larger organization can help coordinate that so than when Johnny President of the Local Cachers Group gets that call from the Press (or the Sheriff) he can whip off some answers to tough questions and even if he can’t come up smelling like roses he’s going to come off as professional, concerned and an all around good guy and geocaching won’t get the black eye it would have.

 

Also a local who is well connected may know 4 other local groups that have already ahd the same problem. However if it’s not, the larger group can get them in touch.

 

On top of that expertise is hard to come by. The parks face this, local groups will face this. A national group has a much, much better means of gathering the kind of volunteer help that’s going to be needed. The kinds of experts that we will need in time are Lawyers, Law Enforcement Professionals, Homeland Security (just to cope with an increasing presence) Archaeologists, Historical Architects, Wetlands experts, Experts in Caving, Land forms, Trail Formation and the list goes on. Local groups will probably have some of the bases covered, but a larger group has more talent to draw from to fill in the gaps that the locals may have.

 

Don’t sell short a larger organization. What the real issue is between a larger organization is how well the larger one and the local ones are going to mesh. They do have a common mission and that’s keeping geocaching viable with a minimum of outside regulation.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Rick618]

46-2-105. Crimes and offenses

(a) No person shall willfully destroy, deface, or injure any monument, tomb, gravestone, or other structure placed in the cemetery, or any roadway, walk, fence or enclosure in or around the same, or injure any tree, plant or shrub therein, or hunt or shoot therein, play at any game or amusement therein, or loiter for lascivious or lewd purposes therein, or interfere, by words or actions, with any funeral procession or any religious exercises.

( B ) A violation of this section is a Class E felony.

http://www.tngenweb.org/law/cemetery-law.html

 

Common sense says that if I can legally go somewhere open to the public and take a picture then I can call the object of the picture a geocache. If I can go there and take a picture without land-owner permission then I can go there, take a picture and list it as a found non-physical geocache without land-owner permission. But common sense does not always prevail.

 

If an area is in fact open to people then it makes no sense whatsoever that non-physical caches would be prohibited. Do waymarks require permission? They are virtuals or earthcaches under another name, right? You go to a public place and look at something, disturb nothing.

 

Current TN law says otherwise to common sense. I hope they are able to work out the problem.

 

If nothing else a resource database of templates of other permits and policies with contact names/info of those responsible in other areas could help to make it easier for those facing a pending permit process or how to handle asking for permission.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Rick618

[+biosearch]

A couple of things.

 

Yes, I believe that local groups may be able to accomplish more than a national group.

 

Yes, I believe that a national network of local advocacy groups may help to work towards solutions on the local level by sharing expertise. This is not necessarily the same thing as a national advocacy group, but a network of local advocacy groups. This could actually be done through a specific forum area, if one does not already exist.

 

Yes I believe that it may be legal for a city/state/national organization to require a cache to be listed at geocaching.com. Of course I am not a lawyer or an expert in these matters, but what it appears to me to be is an acknowledgment of the rules, regulations and approval structure that geocaching.com/Groundspeak has implemented. In essence, the parks have placed the caveat that they must conform to these guidelines. I would argue that to be accepted at many of these locations, something of the same would or should be required within the rules established by those authorities. Making rules that do not require caches to be listed with any organization makes it less controllable.

 

As for TN laws, it appears that these laws apply only to cemeteries. The laws that were listed are actually on a genealogical website and may no longer apply an official TN website with the same applicable rules, regulations or laws would be helpful. If the phrase "play at any game or amusement" is the stipulation that is referred to as disallowing geocaching, even virtual geocaching, then the same could be true of genealogical work (amusement), sightseeing (amusement), a family having a lunch on their family plot on a summer afternoon (amusement, and yes some families do this on their anniversaries associated with a loved one who has passed), even visiting a relatives gravesite could be, with a stretch, construed as being illegal (amusement), even drunk fraternity initiations would be illegal (amusement and games). Obviously all of these do not fit into the same category and some are without a doubt within the bounds of what was envisioned when the law was passed.

 

I believe that common sense and discretion is the key here. If geocachers are to work with local officials then some concessions must be made. At the same time if geocachers are willing to make concessions so to should the authorities. Working with them on a local level seems to be the best solution. National networking would, without a doubt, help in that arena.

 

If one thinks about it, caches, by definition, should not harm, destroy or intrude in any way upon the local area, both native and manmade, or intrude on the privacy of individuals. Caches are supposed to be hidden and geocachers are supposed to be discreet. If either or not, it really isn't much of a cache now, is it?