opinions on this

[+Robespierre]

Our county parks have some newer faces, and suddenly they are taking an interest in caching, perhaps planning an event/cito/class. They are working on a new policy:

 

1. Written permission from the Crawford Park District must be obtained

before placement of any cache.

a. A cache placed previous to this policy (October 07) is grandfathered,

and will not be removed.

b. We are requesting grandfathered caches to be identified.

 

2. Geocachers will have access to three CPD parks: Lowe-Volk Park,

Heckert Nature Preserve and Unger Park.

 

3. Geocachers are not permitted to use Sears Woods State Nature Preserve

or the Sandusky Wildlife Area.

 

4. Placement of a cache must be within 5 feet of the edge of a trail. No

hikers are permitted off

trail/bushwhacking in any of the CPD parks.

 

5. The CPD has the right to set a limit of caches in one park and will

deny future requests on grounds of effective mangagement. After one year

of placement, it is the CPD’s right to ask for removal of a cache

which would make an opening for other cachers to make placement.

 

6. The CPD must be notified when a cache is moved or eliminated.

 

7. No burying or digging is permitted. Cutting trees, shrubs or plants

is also prohibited.

 

8. Micro, Regular and Virtual caches are permitted with Large caches

approved on a per request basis.

 

9. Container contents must be legal and suitable for all ages.

 

10. The cache owner is responsible for care and monitoring of the cache

while on CPD property.

Please monitor often enough to determine if clues or physical features

are current.

(Monthly is recommended).

 

11. Caches placed in CPD parks must be available to the public via a

public website. Caches for private access

will not be accepted.

 

12. All CPD park rules must be followed including the use of parks

during daylight hours only.

 

I have asked about some clarifications, including #5, and honestly, it's still a working project. Would you support the retention of caches as old as this one, or would you prefer that newer caches be preferred, "after one year?"

 

i do not know that we will have much imput on this, but I am being asked opinions, and I know some other cachers are being asked, also. We helped point them to some existing policies, and some good or bad ideas already. These are good and cooperative people.

[+TrailGators]

I disagree with removing caches after a year, but everything else seems reasonable and similiar to park rules we have out here.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I have asked about some clarifications, including #5, and honestly, it's still a working project. Would you support the retention of caches as old as this one, or would you prefer that newer caches be preferred, "after one year?"

Personally, I see no need to replace a cache after a year, as long as the cache is being maintained and the impact on the immediate area is not a factor. But the way they worded item 5, they aren't saying they will remove caches after a year, they are just reserving the right to do so if they want. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

I understand that your input might not be accepted, but given the opportunity, I'd suggest to them they make sure their policy properly deals with the stages of multis, as sometimes coordinates are provided in ways that the park system might not consider to be appropriate (writing coordinates on physical objects in the park, for example).

 

I'd also suggest that they reword item 3, which prohibits geocachers from using the Sears Woods State Nature Preserve. Geocachers should be allowed to use the Preserve, just not place or hunt for caches there.

[+briansnat]

Seems like a fairly reasonable policy. The 5 feet from a trail clause might be tough. I have a hard enough time finding hiding places 100 feet from a trail.

[+TrailGators]

I have asked about some clarifications, including #5, and honestly, it's still a working project. Would you support the retention of caches as old as this one, or would you prefer that newer caches be preferred, "after one year?"

Personally, I see no need to replace a cache after a year, as long as the cache is being maintained and the impact on the immediate area is not a factor. But the way they worded item 5, they aren't saying they will remove caches after a year, they are just reserving the right to do so if they want. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

We usually always agree CTD but I'm not sure about this time. This is what the rule says:

After one year of placement, it is the CPD's right to ask for removal of a cache which would make an opening for other cachers to make placement.

IMHO some of the best caches are the older ones. The logbooks are often full of interesting logs that are enjoyable to read. They add an element of caching history to the game. This practice would reasonable for newbies that want to place caches in the park. However, I think it is unreasonable for the oldbies. Maybe what they should do is say they have the right to limit the number of caches hidden by any one cacher. Then the oldbies could at least keep a few caches in the park.

[+PJPeters]

There's a couple park systems in my area that ask cache owners to move their caches at least 50 feet yearly, and re-apply. That helps keep the impact down, avoiding those trails that branch off into the woods. Might not be a bad idea, either, to help keep the muggles from finding the caches. We're also allowed 20 feet from a trail; I'm not sure how 'wild' your parks are.

Aside from those thoughts, and the concerns posted above, looks not too unreasonable to me.

[+cache_test_dummies]

We usually always agree CTD but I'm not sure about this time. This is what the rule says:

After one year of placement, it is the CPD's right to ask for removal of a cache which would make an opening for other cachers to make placement.

I still read that statement as reserving the right to remove a cache after a year if they so desire. I think the 'would make an opening' is a statement reflecting the resulting effect of removing a cache (i.e.: now there is a space available if someone wants to place a cache there), rather than meaning 'in order to' (i.e: now it's someone else's turn).

 

But just the fact that we have two different interpretations means it probably could be worded more clearly.

 

However they word it, if the intent is to create churn (new caches for old) rather than allowing good caches to stay, I'm in agreement with you that that would be a shame.

[+TrailGators]

We usually always agree CTD but I'm not sure about this time. This is what the rule says:

After one year of placement, it is the CPD's right to ask for removal of a cache which would make an opening for other cachers to make placement.

I still read that statement as reserving the right to remove a cache after a year if they so desire. I think the 'would make an opening' is a statement reflecting the resulting effect of removing a cache (i.e.: now there is a space available if someone wants to place a cache there), rather than meaning 'in order to' (i.e: now it's someone else's turn).

 

But just the fact that we have two different interpretations means it probably could be worded more clearly.

 

However they word it, if the intent is to create churn (new caches for old) rather than allowing good caches to stay, I'm in agreement with you that that would be a shame.

I can see now how you read it the other way. I guess I was trying to understand the reason why they would remove them after a year. I couldn't think of any good reasons, so I took the second part (in bold above) as the reason. You are right, they should reword it.

 

Edit: To clarify above: I can think of good reasons, but none that have to do with having a time limit of one year.

Edited November 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+welch]

number 4 seems a bit hard unless they'd be ok with you chaining locking ammo cans to park signs and such.

 

Don't really see a problem with 5. My guess is they don't really know how much traffic they will get, and how much paperwork (or extra other work like mowing if caches are placed literally right in the trail) and want to be able to 'rotate' people. That way everyone that wants to can eventally place a cache for a while.

[+Chuy!]

Actually seems pretty liberal to me.

 

Kudos to the park for working with cachers instead of forbidding them outright. The 5 feet rule may be the most restrictive rule, but I'm sure you folks will think of something. If the terrain just makes it impossible, I'm sure the rangers may make an exception.

 

Give it a shoot and see what transpires.

[+Robespierre]

The one cache in Sears woods was approved about 4 years ago, but now will have to be removed.

 

The cache cited above (Robespierre's Treasure" - which refers to this great little park, not the cache) is about 4 years old..... and it is the one which I have had questions about. The usual thoughts I've heard expressed would say, "Keep it." Most cachers, before this, like to see the older caches continue. A second cache in the same park, Blackberry Trail, is now a couple of years old. Moonrock611 placed that one, and he has a couple more that date back two years, over in the Bucyrus area. All the other caches in the county parks are pretty new.

[+hairball45]

Well, Robespierre, that is quite a list of regulations and rules. Of course you could be down here in Licking County. Licking County Parks District's rules are much simpler. No caches at all, whatsoever, none, no way, no how. It dates back to a knife in a cache problem and a trail that may or may not have been damaged by cachers. I'd swap with ya.

hairball

Edited November 5, 2007 by hairball45

[+sataraid1]

I have mixed feelings. I suppose that it's good they allow caching at all, however ...

 

It's their park and they can make the rules, but dealing with pages of boilerplate would make me simply want to go somewhere else. What's more, how challenging or fun is it going to be to find caches that are no more than 5 feet off of a trail? In that proximity, how long before they're muggled? No thanks.

 

I predict that it's only a matter of time before one of these "public lands" decides that a fee for placing a geocache is appropriate. Mark my words.

[+PJPeters]

I predict that it's only a matter of time before one of these "public lands" decides that a fee for placing a geocache is appropriate. Mark my words.

The state of Michigan already does that on State Park land. Fortunately, MiGO has been working long and hard to handle that. They pay a blanket 'permit' fee, and the individual hiders only have to get the approval from the local land manager.

When it does happen, start working with the public land managers, reminding them of the money they can make with all the people that come into their parks to cache. It took MiGO 4 years.

[+StarBrand]

The whole things sounds very similar to some of the policies locally.

 

I will echo that the 1 year thing is odd - but I have seen it before.

 

I also believe that it is silly to limit visitors to within 5 foot of any trail. So much for experiencing nature.

[+wimseyguy]

It doesn't seem that bad, and if they are willing to have an open discussion with the local cachers, even better.

I agree that keeping caches within 5' of trails is overly restrictive, and may cause more damage than if they are within 100' of the trails. I like the concept or shifting a cache every year to minimize geo-trails.

 

I predict that it's only a matter of time before one of these "public lands" decides that a fee for placing a geocache is appropriate. Mark my words.

It's already deemed appropriate in several locations. IIRC MIGO is paying an annual fee for cachers statewide in Michigan, and I think there is something similar in Georgia. In NC we also have a fee for placing caches in State Parks, and I can only think of 2-3 hides that have paid the fee. The rest of us play elsewhere.

And there are parking fees and/or admission fees for many public lands already.

Edited November 5, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+Renegade Knight]

Identifying grandfathered caches if fair enough.

 

3 Can be dropped or 2 and 3 combined into one.

 

5) I know what they are trying to do, but it’s hard to put into words. They will allow caches provided they do not interfere in the parks mission. When the parks mission is starting to be compromised from cache saturation they will cap the number of caches to a manageable level. If a cache is causing a problem (in the sole determination of the park system) it will be requested to be removed. They also kick some churn in that they reserve the right to boot a cache after a year, just to mix it up.

 

7. If the park already prohibits these things they do not need to be restated in the cache rules.

 

Micro has more impact than Regular and regular more than large…Something to keep in mind, but the rule is fair enough.

 

9. Is already by law. However I like their thinking on cache contents.

 

10) The park has full time staff to care for their own grounds. Cachers work. The purpose for written permission is so the park can monitor caches. If they aren’t going to monitor caches, then you don’t really need a permit system to begin with and you can just allow caching as a casual activity. I’m not sure what they mean by “clues and physical features are current”

 

11) Good rule.

 

12) Redundant in that park rules must be followed by anyone using the parks. No need to rehash it. However a link to the park rules may be something to consider.

 

Edit:

My comments on the trail got dropped somewhere.

If pepole are already required to stay on the trail you don't need to make a rule telling people to stay on the trail. The caches should be within 5' of a trail clarifies what "staying on the trail is". This trail limitation makes sence in some parks who's mission is preservation and/or restoration. However if it's recreation then it's just an artifical limit.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+sataraid1]

It's already deemed appropriate in several locations. IIRC MIGO is paying an annual fee for cachers statewide in Michigan, and I think there is something similar in Georgia. In NC we also have a fee for placing caches in State Parks, and I can only think of 2-3 hides that have paid the fee. The rest of us play elsewhere.

And there are parking fees and/or admission fees for many public lands already.

 

I wish I could say that this surprises me. Typically insipid governmental behavior, stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. Geocaching probably brings hundreds of visitors to a park that wouldn't otherwise have come there, but they can't resist grabbing that extra buck, can they?

 

I personally would refuse to pay a fee to place a cache in a park that I had to pay to get into in the first place, and this is from a guy who usually buys DNR park annual passes AND horse tags.

 

It would be interesting to see exactly how much revenue the state of Indiana generates specifically from geocaching.

[magellan315]

You should consider asking them to place caches at different numbers of feet off the trail to test the rule. i.e. a cache at 5', 15' 25' 50'. This way they can see whih causes the least damage. If the cache is 5 feet from the trail everyone is going step off the taril at about the same point and their will be a higher rate of muggling.

[+9Key]

I sure am glad we don't have any policies like that in my area. I would simply not hide caches in their parks or even visit them for that matter. Who in heck wants to jump through all of those hoops?

[+baloo&bd]

We have similar policies in a county near me, with the exception of the 5 ft rule and they require clear containers.

 

5. If I understand what they are trying to get to, they might add wording about the cache having not been found in XX number of days/months.

 

8. Reasonable to keep the smaller sizes to reduce impact and "geo-litter". Obviously they can drop Vitruals.

 

10. Here they require a similar check on the cache however it is based on frequency of the finds. If it is being found and no complaints, a simple email suffices saying it is OK.

 

They could probably reduce a lot of the wording by just stating "all Geocaching.com policies are in full effect.

 

All in all, it does not sound that unreasonable.

 

A thread with the policy I am referencing can be found here.

[+scuba dude]

All in all, it does not sound that unreasonable.

 

This is the problem of all governmental entities. They steal from you a tiny bit at a time. Each time is so little You don't notice or say "it's not THAT bad. I can live with that." Eventually the "public" lands we all own, require payments, fees, licensing, contracts, fees, taxes, and more fees on top of the federal taxes we pay to maintain them.

[+baloo&bd]

This is the problem of all governmental entities. They steal from you a tiny bit at a time. Each time is so little You don't notice or say "it's not THAT bad. I can live with that." Eventually the "public" lands we all own, require payments, fees, licensing, contracts, fees, taxes, and more fees on top of the federal taxes we pay to maintain them.

 

You really need to add smileys for those of us not familiar with your sense of humor.

 

Everything in there seems to be aimed at protecting the grounds while still allowing geocaching. The things like the 5 foot rule were written from a perspective of someone who has not been geocaching.

 

Fees were never mentioned.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Fees were never mentioned.

All you need is a budget crunch or a manager to ask the question. "How much time do we spend reviewing these applications and why can't the applicants cover the cost of that time?"

 

Normally what won't happen (unless the director is really bright) is to ask the question, "why the heck do we bother regulating these caches anyway, in all the time we have, did it really matter?"

[+RussellM]

God i love New York. The DEC has taken a hands off aproach to geocaching. Kind of a don't ask don't tell policy. While i know that won't last forever, i'll enjoy it while it's still here.

[+baloo&bd]

All you need is a budget crunch or a manager to ask the question. "How much time do we spend reviewing these applications and why can't the applicants cover the cost of that time?"

 

Normally what won't happen (unless the director is really bright) is to ask the question, "why the heck do we bother regulating these caches anyway, in all the time we have, did it really matter?"

 

With the exception of #10, where do you see any indication to do anything be mange the resources. Even #4, the one everyone agrees needs to be looked at, intention is to preserve.

 

The alternative is to say no to caches all together. I think a more likely scenario is for these parks and land managers to get on these and other local forums (the forest preserve mentioned in my previous posts does), see all the angst over their efforts and say "why the heck do we bother allowing these caches anyway. With all the effort and we spend trying to make this work, wouldn't it be easier just to say NO CACHING?"

 

I think if the mentality that land mangers are out to get us changes to let's work together since our purposes really do align well, we would see less prohibitive policies.

[Keystone]

I sure am glad we don't have any policies like that in my area. I would simply not hide caches in their parks or even visit them for that matter. Who in heck wants to jump through all of those hoops?

Crawford County's new policy is one of more than 25 policies that the Ohio volunteer cache reviewers need to keep track of -- ranging from outright bans (like the Licking County example described by Hairball) to the very friendly, informal, paperwork-free policy used by the Ohio State Parks.

 

In Ohio, you really need to know the lay of the regulatory landscape before you study the lay of the land for hiding your cache. Yet, the State is on pace to exceed 10,000 active caches by the end of the year. People are still going to those parks to hide caches, permits and all.

 

As a student of geocaching policies, the part that bothers me the most is the "5 feet from the trail" rule, for the reasons already noted.

[+MickieD]

North Texas is non-restrictive. I like that! So many to find.. so many places to hide more!

 

Y'all just move down here and play with us!

[Neos2]

I think the overall effect is reasonable. I am also concerned about the 5' limitation, and join the folks who say that may cause the problems it is trying to avoid. I'm pre-supposing they are asking this because they have a general rule about staying on the trails to minimize damage to fragile areas off the trail. Perhaps it could be changed to "a reasonable distance from the trail" and left on a case-by-case basis, or particularly fragile areas could be noted as off-limits.

 

If 100 people visit the park in one year and they all walk across the same five feet, it will certainly make a much bigger path than if the same 100 people approach a cache 50 feet off the path from 10 different approaches. Increasing the distance to the cache from the trail increases the potential approaches, especially as seasonal changes make some approaches less likely certain times of the year.

[+Renegade Knight]

...With the exception of #10, where do you see any indication to do anything be mange the resources. Even #4, the one everyone agrees needs to be looked at, intention is to preserve....

 

Parks are created with a mission and purpose. I'd rather read the mission to decide what the park system was created for than guess based on a set of proposed rules.

 

My comments in this thread are just answers to questions. The OP asked for comments on the policy. You asked about something else.

 

Most parks I work with recognize that recreation is an important part of their purpose if not the only part. They don't regulate caches, nor do they ask the question "why the heck do we allow these stupid caches." Instead they recognize that a great new activity has come along and their parks have yet another way to be enjoyed. There is no "out to get us" mentality. they are out to do the most good with limited resources as they can. My job affords me the opportunity to help them do just that.

 

It doesn't change the reality of what I said. If the park system hits a crunch it's not much of a stretch to start charging a processing fee on permits. My own agency, along with my agencies counterpart in other states are having a budget crunch and are proposing exactly what I have said could happen in answering your question. More and higher user fees. Reality is what it is.

 

Another reality. Agencies take on the personalities of the person running them. Rules take on the personality of the person enforcing them. However they all work from the framework they are given.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I might wager that they fear making a lifetime commitment on a cache sight-unseen. They are probably willing to put-up with an unimaginative or embarassing hide for a year, but at least they can reserve the right to remove it without having to say "your cache stinks!" It's like the temp-worker phenomenon; you don't have to fire a temp, and you don't have to come up with any justification or follow any termination procedure. All you have to do is simply not renew the contract. That makes termination easier and less painful, if necessary, which makes the commitment easier for the park managers.

 

...which makes getting a cache approved much easier.

[+TrailGators]

I might wager that they fear making a lifetime commitment on a cache sight-unseen. They are probably willing to put-up with an unimaginative or embarassing hide for a year, but at least they can reserve the right to remove it without having to say "your cache stinks!" It's like the temp-worker phenomenon; you don't have to fire a temp, and you don't have to come up with any justification or follow any termination procedure. All you have to do is simply not renew the contract. That makes termination easier and less painful, if necessary, which makes the commitment easier for the park managers.

 

...which makes getting a cache approved much easier.

That's a good point, if that's what their intention was in making the one year rule. Edited November 6, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I sure am glad we don't have any policies like that in my area. I would simply not hide caches in their parks or even visit them for that matter. Who in heck wants to jump through all of those hoops?

Crawford County's new policy is one of more than 25 policies that the Ohio volunteer cache reviewers need to keep track of -- ranging from outright bans (like the Licking County example described by Hairball) to the very friendly, informal, paperwork-free policy used by the Ohio State Parks.

 

In Ohio, you really need to know the lay of the regulatory landscape before you study the lay of the land for hiding your cache. Yet, the State is on pace to exceed 10,000 active caches by the end of the year. People are still going to those parks to hide caches, permits and all.

 

As a student of geocaching policies, the part that bothers me the most is the "5 feet from the trail" rule, for the reasons already noted.

The 5 foot rule really depends on the location/landscape of the park and what the rangers are trying to protect. Southern California landscape is loaded with rocks and boulders along most trails, so it's easy to hide caches close to the trails. Ohio is more wooded so that rule would not allow an ammo box to be placed inside a stump 15-20 feet off the trail, which seems silly.

[+Robespierre]

I sure am glad we don't have any policies like that in my area. I would simply not hide caches in their parks or even visit them for that matter. Who in heck wants to jump through all of those hoops?

Crawford County's new policy is one of more than 25 policies that the Ohio volunteer cache reviewers need to keep track of -- ranging from outright bans (like the Licking County example described by Hairball) to the very friendly, informal, paperwork-free policy used by the Ohio State Parks.

 

In Ohio, you really need to know the lay of the regulatory landscape before you study the lay of the land for hiding your cache. Yet, the State is on pace to exceed 10,000 active caches by the end of the year. People are still going to those parks to hide caches, permits and all.

 

As a student of geocaching policies, the part that bothers me the most is the "5 feet from the trail" rule, for the reasons already noted.

The 5 foot rule really depends on the location/landscape of the park and what the rangers are trying to protect. Southern California landscape is loaded with rocks and boulders along most trails, so it's easy to hide caches close to the trails. Ohio is more wooded so that rule would not allow an ammo box to be placed inside a stump 15-20 feet off the trail, which seems silly.

One of the older caches is a pine cone, and it's within the 5' rule. The oldest is in a depression under a flat rock, behind the jewelweed, and within the 5' rule. The Sears Woods cache mentioned, which will now be removed, has been in the same stump for years with no problems.

[+simpjkee]

Point number 5 seems questionable to me. The CDP deciding how many caches allowed and length of time they're allowed contradicts geocaching's guidelines.

 

I wonder. Do us geocachers have a group of people who sit down and meet with CDP's group of people to discuss and compromise along these guidelines or are we just slaves to what other people tell us to do. It seems beneficial for us to have "our people" sit down with "their people" and explain why we would have an issue with them requesting to remove caches after a year. If the meeting is done with good intentions, I think we could get some good compromise. Though, if it is just up to people e-mailing the CDP about our concerns then they won't really pay attention and say "play by our rules or else", ya know.

[+scuba dude]

This is the problem of all governmental entities. They steal from you a tiny bit at a time. Each time is so little You don't notice or say "it's not THAT bad. I can live with that." Eventually the "public" lands we all own, require payments, fees, licensing, contracts, fees, taxes, and more fees on top of the federal taxes we pay to maintain them.

 

You really need to add smileys for those of us not familiar with your sense of humor.

 

Everything in there seems to be aimed at protecting the grounds while still allowing geocaching. The things like the 5 foot rule were written from a perspective of someone who has not been geocaching.

 

Fees were never mentioned.

 

Sadly I wasn't kidding, therefore no emoticons.

 

I LOVE the reason parks are (were) created. To give everybody a place to enjoy nature, without fear of corporations turning the site into the next office building or parking garage. The problem then becomes one of government sticking it's finger in. The parks are there for people to enjoy nature. But, "OMG!!! people are coming to the parks! We can't handle this! We need to hire more rangers, and more people, and more people. But how do we pay for these people? LET'S MAKE EVERYONE PAY A FEE TO ENJOY NATURE!"

 

The other side of the coin (so to speak) is when government consults lawyers for every move it makes. The Lawyers play it safe and recommend denying access to prevent lawsuits. Results are the same. We don't get to enjoy what was there for "we the people."

 

I know I'm an alarmist. I work FOR the goverment. I know how government works. All governemnts exist to exand themselves. Just becuase IT hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not right around the corner IF WE DON'T STOP IT. Too many people are lazy and do nothing when government erodes our rights and freedoms bit by bit.

 

But I'll get off my soapbox, since it has become a hijack from the original purpose of the OP.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey,

 

Seems pretty good for a policy (at least a start to one)...at least they are trying and want to promote geocaching. Get the local geocachers to work alongs side the park people and things may change in the future for the better.

 

There is a town in my area that has a three month waiting period (if everything goes right...but there are times it could take longer) before a cache can be placed

 

...so, it could always be worse!!!

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Edited November 6, 2007 by ArcherDragoon

[+prontopup]

Our county parks have some newer faces, and suddenly they are taking an interest in caching, perhaps planning an event/cito/class. They are working on a new policy:

...

11. Caches placed in CPD parks must be available to the public via a

public website. Caches for private access

will not be accepted.

...

These are good and cooperative people.

 

I have a question about #11. Does this preclude hiding "members-only" caches? Or are those caches considered available to the public? Just wondering.

[+Robespierre]

Our county parks have some newer faces, and suddenly they are taking an interest in caching, perhaps planning an event/cito/class. They are working on a new policy:

...

11. Caches placed in CPD parks must be available to the public via a

public website. Caches for private access

will not be accepted.

...

These are good and cooperative people.

 

I have a question about #11. Does this preclude hiding "members-only" caches? Or are those caches considered available to the public? Just wondering.

I do not, personally, hide MO caches, though I would not hesitate to consider that it is not a violation. I suspect that no one would notice.

[+edscott]

The "5 feet from the trail" rule guarantees a geopath to the cache. A "greater than 500 feet from the trail" rule just about eliminates it since everyone will find their own route. But whatever makes them happy.

[+paleolith]

Obviously they can drop Vitruals.

I assume you refer to the fact that geocaching.com no longer allows virtual caches to be placed. However, the policy as quoted is carefully worded to avoid any tie to gc.com and to allow publication of caches on any public web site. Thus a virtual posted on Waymarking.com would be covered by this policy. And thus mentioning virtual caches is not a no-op.

 

Edward

[+Robespierre]

Due to the State's and the County's rather new (renewed) interest in geocaching, some dedicated people are working to establish policy, and it is withing the rules and best interest of geocaching that the members of NCOG work with these people. One result is that one cache was found to be in violation of State rules and was archived. Fair enough.

 

But I find the negative log on this cache to be in bad taste. I think it should be removed.

[+Robespierre]

bump

[+cache_test_dummies]

But I find the negative log on this cache to be in bad taste. I think it should be removed.

Yeah, that log does not seem to be particularly helpful.

[+ODragon]

I have a question about #11. Does this preclude hiding "members-only" caches? Or are those caches considered available to the public? Just wondering.

I do not, personally, hide MO caches, though I would not hesitate to consider that it is not a violation. I suspect that no one would notice.

Possibly... here in PA, the DCNR has 'banned' members only caches. They didn't want to create a whole bunch of premium members accounts to check on caches. Apparently they read cache logs to determine if all is well in the areas the caches are. I see no issue with them not wanting MO caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The "5 feet from the trail" rule guarantees a geopath to the cache. A "greater than 500 feet from the trail" rule just about eliminates it since everyone will find their own route. But whatever makes them happy

 

This is difficult to quantify and doubtless varies from one region to another. When I spoke with Florida FWC on geocaching I suggest that the usual (here) 30-100 feet off trail guarantees a user trail - as does anything closer.

400 or more feet results in much less visible user trail, generally. But here, I'm talking about large properties, with a tremendous ability for the vegetation to recover over a long summer.

[+Robespierre]

The "5 feet from the trail" rule guarantees a geopath to the cache. A "greater than 500 feet from the trail" rule just about eliminates it since everyone will find their own route. But whatever makes them happy

 

This is difficult to quantify and doubtless varies from one region to another. When I spoke with Florida FWC on geocaching I suggest that the usual (here) 30-100 feet off trail guarantees a user trail - as does anything closer.

400 or more feet results in much less visible user trail, generally. But here, I'm talking about large properties, with a tremendous ability for the vegetation to recover over a long summer.

My cache, mentioned in the OP, is located behind a patch of jewelweed, just beside the trail. It is easily damaged, but not really destroyed. Jewelweed always reseeds itself, and grows in patches of sunlight and moisture under the trees. It recovers easily. I have never noticed any mentionable damage to these plants.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Robespierre