Jump to content

Saturation

wayfarer222

By wayfarer222
in General geocaching topics

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Surfer Joe

+Surfer Joe

Posted
Posted
Does the 'Park' go and look at each location to give their approval?

 

No. The rules are right on the registration form. The District and the geocaching.com reviewer (me, in this case) assume that rules have been followed. If you had to wait for a park official and me to check on the cache prior to publication, you would be waiting a long, long time.

 

Surfer Joe

Link to comment
Rockin Roddy

+Rockin Roddy

Posted
Posted
You might also apologize to your other local finders who won't have these good caches to go after, now that your actions got them archived.

 

wayfarer222's actions had nothing to do with the caches getting archived.

 

I found a few of these caches to be in gross violation of the Three Rivers Parks geocaching policy while caching under my player account over the weekend. The policy requires that all caches be within 25 feet of an established park trail. This district considers anyone more than 25 feet off-trial to be trespassing. The caches in question were 100-300 feet from the nearest trail. I pointed this out to the cache owner in a private email and gave him the option of either moving the caches to be in compliance, or to remove and archive them.

 

For several years, caching was outright banned in this district. Through a great deal of hard work by the Minnesota Geocaching Association, we are not only allowed back in, but have a very good relationship with them. Part of my job as a volunteer cache reviewer is to make sure that relationship is maintained.

 

Surfer Joe

 

Sounds like Wayfarer was right on with this, glad to see that others are watching to assure that our sport will be allowed in those parks!

 

The rules MUST be adhered to in order to keep caching available in places we'd like. SAYING the cache is within the guidelines while they truly aren't gives caching a bad image and causes trouble that isn't needed! One might want to keep in mind that someone could check up on their hides (in this case a reviewer out caching, but it could have been a park employee...), a finding of not obeying park rules should earn the hider a little "time-out" from placing hides (by the park of course). NEVER should caching be brought into question because someone was careless or intentionally out of bounds (reminds me of the trespass issues...)

Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted

As it happens, 3 Rivers Parks DID know EXACTLY where every single cache within their parks were. The person in charge of approving the caches said she personally knew they were past the 25' mark, and she didnt have a problem with it. In fact she was rather fond of our efforts, and tried a couple of times to discurage us from archieving them.

Its clear who has the problem, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Our caches were fine with the park managers.

They were reviewed and approved by the park.

They were reviewed and approved by the local reviewer.

1 person had a problem with these. And didn't bother to contact us personally.

Link to comment
wimseyguy

+wimseyguy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Umm, if so many people had positive comments, and the park manager personally OK'd the placements, and only one person has complained, then why are you taking your toys and going home? :)

Seems to me the majority of the community is behind you, and there wasn't any real reason to archive the caches if the local park manager was OK with stretching the rules for this preserve. Or is there still more to this we don't know? :)

 

I don't watch soap operas, but I do love reading about them in the forums. :)

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

As it happens, 3 Rivers Parks DID know EXACTLY where every single cache within their parks were. The person in charge of approving the caches said she personally knew they were past the 25' mark, and she didnt have a problem with it. In fact she was rather fond of our efforts, and tried a couple of times to discurage us from archieving them.

Its clear who has the problem, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Our caches were fine with the park managers.

They were reviewed and approved by the park.

They were reviewed and approved by the local reviewer.

1 person had a problem with these. And didn't bother to contact us personally.

 

Actually it was 2 people and one of them was the reviewer.

 

If the locations were approved by the park then perhaps there is simply a lack of communication at fault here. I know if I was a reviewer who found a cache that I knew was in violation of a park rule I would archive it without hesitation.

 

Now if the park granted you an exception to a known park rule, you should have stated that fact in a note to reviewer along with the name and contact information of the person who granted the exception.

 

A reviewer can't read your mind.

Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, but one would hope that they can read a letter of approval from the park.

 

I know if I was a reviewer who found a cache that I knew was in violation of a park rule I would archive it without hesitation.

 

That is exactly what we did. To the letter.

Edited by Abra Cadaver
Link to comment
Rockin Roddy

+Rockin Roddy

Posted
Posted

I wonder how many caches this was? (I remember reading 20??...I could look, but I'm lazy) Out of all those hides you had, only 2 were actually within the guidelines?

 

I'm only able to guess at the options given you by SJ, but I'd have to think that showing authorization must have been one of them? Why didn't you just point out that TPTB had OK'd them? I know I'd NEVER archive a hide if I had authorization for it (and it met GS guidelines of course), too much work putting them out, too much fun watching the logs come in!

 

This isn't a question of whether the caches were popular.

Link to comment
kumoorion

+kumoorion

Posted
Posted

Now wait, What is this really about (saturation) or (violation). :) If saturation I see that the Three River Park allow 20 caches per park. Read for your self. Three River Park If it is a violation of the rules couldn't one move it to make the correction. :)

 

Wayfarer222 found (25) of Abra Cadaver caches. Here is the logs from each of them. They seem to like finding them........

Only a few concerns were mentioned. No big deal. I have seem caches with trails leading to them and some with damp inside. :)

 

Beacon Deacon

August 19 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Clever hide! Found with tonka_boy. TN, left a mini first aid kit. TFTC!

 

Cuttleflage

August 19 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

This one is safe from the muggles, that's for sure! Very nice hide! TN, left a mini first aid kit. TFTC!

 

Pog's Brother Pounce

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice find after this day of walking 11 miles. TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

Are You Yankin' Me ?

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Clever! Muggle traffic was high here. TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

Barbossa

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

FTF. Found the cache--and rickrich. Wrapping things up when we saw him heading into the woods, GPSr in hand. Those geocachers are an easy find sometimes. TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

Baker Net 1

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice hide! TN, left a copy of "101 Things To Do on the Wisconsin Great River Road". TFTC!

 

Baker Net 3 August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Another nice hide. TN, left a rain poncho, which we probably could have used yesterday. TFTC!

 

Stoneware

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Kind of weird place. Looked like there was massive water flow here from yesterday's rains. TN, left a mini first aid kit. TFTC!

 

Zombie Time

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Glad I found this one now. Might not be able to get here in the spring. The geo-hubbie spotted this one. Nice hide! TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

Baker Net 2

August 12 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice container. One of our nine finds today, including one FTF. (Sorry, rickrich.) TN, left a copy of "101 Things To Do on the Wisconsin Great River Road". Also dropped off the Sock R Mouse TB for more adventures. TFTC!

 

My Little Cache Cabin

August 11 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Found the bugger! Cool container, though it does need a little maintenance on the top part. Grabbed the Oldest Cache geocoin. TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

Dragonfly

August 11 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

FTF! Soon as the storm let up, we headed out with not too much daylight to spare. Just as we were getting ready to turn in for the final hunt, Officer Friendly pulled up. Apparently we were parked where we shouldn't have been. He gave us a pass and we headed in. The cache was FILLED with water. The log was okay. Nothing like seeing a blank log book. TNLNSL. TFTC!

 

My Backup Camo Laptop

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Cute container! One of seven finds today. Nice hide. Took nothing, left a copy our our book, "101 Things To Do on the Wisconsin Great River Road". TFTC!

 

Pill Film

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

One of those finds when I thought, duh, do you have to hit me over the head with it! Gez. Took nothing, left an insect repellent wipe which had I found it today in a cache, I would have been most grateful. TFTC!

 

I Ain't Got NO-Body

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

I get it! Funny! This one was a bit tricky. Made sure and hid it as well as it was when we found it. Took nothing, left an insect repellent wipe. TFTC!

 

Sour Mash Cache

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Made me thirsty too. Took nothing, left some cool U.S. Forest Service "prevent forest fires" shoestrings. TFTC!

 

Chapel in the Woods

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

How cute is this one! Was expecting something different. Hope it holds up okay. Left a travel bug and an insect repellent wipe. TFTC!

 

Pink

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Clever hide! Took nothing, left an insect repellent wipe. TFTC!

 

Garlic

August 5 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice find after a long day of caching. TFTC!

 

Monkey Biz

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice to find this one after the DNF on Deadwood. Thorns were brutal. Yikes! Left a copy of our book, "101 Things To Do on the Wisconsin Great River Road" and dropped a travel bug. TN. SL. TFTC!

 

Stickman

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Nice hide! So well hidden! Thanks for the challenge!

 

Evil Intentions

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

Very clever set up! Luck must have been with us because we found this one right away. TFTC! TN, left a Door County keychain.

 

Old School Navigation

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

[Nice hide!] Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your prespective], a bunch led us right to the spot. Just followed the trail to the spot. [TN. Left an insect repellent wipe. TFTC!]

 

Wizard of Odd

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

[Nice, easy find.] Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, found this without the GPSr because of the very well-tramped trail to the cache. Vulnerable to mugglers because of that? [TN. Left an insect repellent wipe. TFTC!]

 

Frank Wrench

August 4 by wayfarer222 (94 found)

This is one evil cache! Got a nice cache on my arm because of the thorns. Fun find! Thanks for the challenge! TFTC!

Link to comment
Rockin Roddy

+Rockin Roddy

Posted
Posted (edited)

ummmm...probably when ASKED by a reviewer? You archived the caches instead of showing the proper authorization? Why? If you have the paper verifying what you say here, I'm sure SJ and you could come to an agreement. Now, if you don't, I could see archiving all of them.

 

To me, having to go out and retrieve all those containers (you did go after them...right?) would be my LAST resort, I'd prove my right to place as fast and clear as possible.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted (edited)

*sigh* yes, Marlen W. at 3 rivers personally looked at the area, and approved each and every cache. If our local reviewer had asked before they were published, we would have gladly obtained what we needed. No such request was made.

There not all archived. We left some that, with any good luck, nobody will have a problem with.

I guess I see it differently, it's a free game....Do I need to defend or prove anything? Originally, someone said they felt "cheated" that the park was full. We did what we could do to make that right. As it turns out, that person had / has no intention of hiding anything.

Sometimes you just can't win.

Of course we will be retrieving them. I'm obviously not in this for the popularity, I like the exercise. Since we won't be placing anymore caches, as our local guy seems to have a problem with us, I would like to get a few more walks in.

Edited by Abra Cadaver
Link to comment
Rockin Roddy

+Rockin Roddy

Posted
Posted

Speaking from a hider's view, I have several in a state park here. There is an agreement between MiGO (MI Geocaching Org) and the DNR that we can place our hides in their parks for free! We STILL have to go and get a permit drawn for each cache placed and have it signed by TPTB from that park.

 

It's not a huge thing, you fill out the form and they ask you to mark the area on their map (or whatever your park might ask...it's different most everywhere). BASICALLY, it helps to ID who the placer is, who OK'd the cache placement and that all guidelines were met.

 

Seeing the previous ban on caches and the reversal, i would bet the setup is much the same there? No one would have had to ask you to obtain the permit, you'd have got that when asking for the permission to place! When asked to provide said paper, you'd have had it and that would have been the end (or that's the case here at least).

Link to comment
2disturbed

2disturbed

Posted
Posted

So were the caches orginally archieved so that other GC's could

place their own? Or did a reviewer ask that they be archieved?

 

I think the OP should have emailed Abra first with their concern.

Be it the over saturation issue or rule violations.

 

I say, if the park approved them and realized that they were in

conflict with their own rules - leave em there.

 

Hate to see them leave, espically since I didnt find all of them yet...

 

-Sean

 

PS I hope that you will continue to hide caches. My first experience was

your resident evil one at Crow/Hassann park.

Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted

Allright... this is K!11shot, the other half of Abra Cadaver. I wasn't going to even bother with my own response to all this, but, here ya go. First of all I had a long chat with Marlene this morning. Marlene is the one who runs the 3 Rivers Geo gig around here. I spoke with her at length about the "GROSSLY VIOLATING" caches that surfer joe referred to, and according to her, we are NOT ABUSING the placement guidelines. Out of the 40 some caches we placed in 3 different parks, less than 5 of those were past the distance requirements. She said if they were all like that, then we may have a problem. But 5 was far from abusing the policy. She then tells me how many people have been in the parks recently, and that we were doing a fine job of caching, and would like to see us continue to do what we have been doing. According to Marlene, the more caches we place, the more reason for people to visit their parks.More people visiting her parks apparently makes her very happy... Now, as far as the rest of the issues I've seen throughout this thread, well... where to start. As far as containers go... we generally do a pretty good job. 90% of our containers are hand camo painted, and clearcoated for the long run. We also have a few experimental containers in the mix. Now Wayfarer said that" one was even full of water"... I'm thinking to myself WOW noone has ever found a wet cache before, never made a maintenance post before? It seemed to me like she was just taking an extra shot at us, like we're not worthy to place a cache or something. Going out to fix a cache, or replace a container is no big deal, so throw something better at me than "oh a wet log, how unworthy". Now, as far as saturation... Did I miss something here? Do people not want things to find? Do they not want a cacher friendly half day walk to get a gaggle of caches without having to drive all over town? And as for memorable Caching Experiences... Go make one of our runs and you tell me...

What you get is... A range of difficulty, for those with the kiddies in tow up to your FTF commando style hunts.

You also get... a variety of containers to find, not just the same stale cache containers. And to round out each loop of ours, we add a couple custom built caches to end your day with. The Cadaver Cache series comes to mind, as well as cuttleflage,deadwood,twiggy, and the wizard staff.

So... if these runs of caches we placed, with a few Super Sweet ones in each run, aren't good enough...what is? We tried to give some caches back to those who've allready done so much placing for the rest of us around here. I guess I thought it would have been a nice thing to do, especially for those who allready have 3000+ finds, and have probably found dadgum near everything in the metro allready. Guess I made a Mistake.

As Far as "taking our toys and going home", well it's gonna be tough to continue this activity when your reviewer has a problem with you... everything has to go through Joe, and he informed us last week before this even started, that we shouldn't be out placing all these caches. Now if your reviewer says that to you... it's a personal thing. Otherwise why say it at all, why can't WE place caches? Would it be different if my name were King Boreas? Would I get this much grief then? You all tell me...

Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted

I really can't say this enough....we did what we were required to do. We filled out a permit WITH exact coordinates for each and every cache.

Those permits were reviewed by 3 Rivers Parks. They were approved by 3 Rivers Parks.

A list with all of the approvals was sent to the local reviewer. He reviewed and approved each and every one.

Link to comment
Rockin Roddy

+Rockin Roddy

Posted
Posted
Since we won't be placing anymore caches, as our local guy seems to have a problem with us, I would like to get a few more walks in.

 

I have doubts your reviewer has it in for you, just doing his job!

 

Seriously, if you have the proof, present and unarchive. If you don't have proof but can obtain it, go get it and present it. I'm sure SJ would be interested in seeing what you have!

Link to comment
Surfer Joe

+Surfer Joe

Posted
Posted

For the record, Abra Cadaver was given the option of moving his/her/their caches to be in compliance or removing them and archiving the listing. The second option seems to be the one chosen.

 

Also for the record, I had my own conversation with Marlene at Three Rivers Parks today. She did NOT know that the caches in question were 100 to 300 feet off of the trails and she agreed that such placements were not acceptable and thanked me for bringing the situation to her attention.

 

Abra Cadaver, I do not "have it in for you". I have pointed out some errors and asked you to correct them; errors that could affect much of the Minnesota caching community. Obviously, a lot of people have been enjoying your hides. I enjoyed many of them. The only problem is a few of them were placed against the park districts rules. Fix those few hides and everybody is happy.

 

Surfer Joe

Link to comment
Abra Cadaver

Abra Cadaver

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well Joe, what can we say? The conversation with Marlene that I had was completly different then what you're discribing.

We have had several emails asking us why we archieved our caches, we directed them here.

In an ongoing attempt to make everyone happy, it seems we should re-activate SOME of the caches....of course not the "GROSS VIOLATORS"

We will keep said " GROSS VIOLATORS" archieved. Any cache that is more then 25' off center, will be archieved. Any other cache you can think of, for whatever reason, will be archieved. Chances are, somebody will complain about this approch as well.

This really does seem like its harder then it should be. We just wanted to do some caching.

Edited by Abra Cadaver
Link to comment
Quiggle

+Quiggle

Posted
Posted
This really does seem like its harder then it should be. We just wanted to do some caching.

At this point, it seems like the thread has run its course. The OP got their question answered, and the rest of the 'situation' should be resolved privately between the hider and reviewer.

 

Abra Cadaver, I hope you continue to enjoy geocaching -- both finding and hiding.

 

Thread closed.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...