Jump to content

Seattle City Parks Dept. Policy on caches in Discovery park.


nevcowpok
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

As an aside to the discussion of caches in Discovery Park, the March issue of Seattle Metropolitan Magazine has a small piece on geocaching, and wouldn’t you know it the picture in the article shows a cacher in Discovery Park. See page 78

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

 

I love the irony.

Link to comment

I wonder what is different here ?

 

From News from Minnesota State Parks

 

Geocaching: A High-Tech Hunt for Minnesota History

Geocaching, a kind of high-tech treasure hunt, is at the center of a new program that Minnesota State Parks is rolling out for the summer of 2008 in celebration of the state’s 150th birthday. Geocaching, which has become very popular in the past few years, is a modern hide-and-seek game using GPS (global positioning system) devices to track down a stash hidden at a location that has been posted on a website by latitude and longitude. The GPS is a hand-held, computerized navigational tool used to track these global coordinates via satellite technology.

 

Minnesota State Parks has asked local geocachers across the state to help hide caches in all 72 state parks. The cache, or hidden treasure, is a weatherproof, camouflage container holding a logbook and collectable history cards, similar to baseball trading cards, which will have a photo and historical information about the park where the cache is located.

 

When geocachers find the container, they can write comments in the logbook and take one of the cards. If they collect all the park history cards for a particular region of the state, they can earn a Regional Challenge Geocoin. Find all 72 park geocaches and receive a special medallion.

 

In addition, each cache will hold “travel bugs,” small trinkets that represent the park. Visitors who find the cache are invited to carry the travel bug to a cache in another state park. The travels of the travel bugs will be tracked, to see how many parks each bug can get to.

 

The caches will be hidden but easily accessible, just off a trail or near something historic in the park. Some will be relatively easy to find, and others, more difficult.

 

Intrigued, but not familiar with geocaching? Sixteen major state parks around the state are designated as demonstration parks, which will hold periodic “how-to” geocache programs. In addition, they will have GPS units and instruction cards that can be checked out free of charge. Coordinates of the cache location are already entered into the GPS unit.

 

Why the buzz about geocaching? Cindy and Allen Habedank of Bemidji, who are helping State Parks with this program, just discovered the sport in the past year but are already avid geocachers. “We like the outdoors, exploring, learning, technology, using your imagination, meeting new friends and being creative,” explains Allan. “The State Parks geocaching program has all of this and much more.”

 

“The beauty of this program is that it gives a reason to visit parks that people might not have visited in the past,” adds Scott Engstrom of Duluth, who is also working with State Parks on this project. “This will give me the perfect excuse to enjoy some magnificent hikes and breathtaking views.” It’s also great family fun. “My kids have a blast on these treasure hunts,” adds Scott.

 

People travel cross-country in search of caches. “They (State Parks) are encouraging people from all over the country to come to Minnesota and experience the best we have,” says Allan Habedank.

 

The Minnesota State Parks Geocaching History Challenge kicks off on May 11, the date Minnesota became a state 150 years ago. For more information on the program, go to: www.mnstateparks.info. For more information on the sport, go to www.geocaching.com

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

Utah has had state-park-sponsored geocaching for a couple of years. I think it was 2006 where the state parks were trying to have a geocache in every park as part of a tourism program.

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

 

I'd hardly call the Washington State policy stringent. They are asking you to speak to the ranger, describe your cache location and fill out a contact information sheet. They do have the right to say no to a location and/or suggest a better one and ask that you agree to a maintenance plan. Some states have fees involved in placing caches in their parks, limits on how many caches per park they will permit (regardless of how large the park is) and firm time limits on how long a cache can be in place.

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

 

I'd hardly call the Washington State policy stringent. They are asking you to speak to the ranger, describe your cache location and fill out a contact information sheet. They do have the right to say no to a location and/or suggest a better one and ask that you agree to a maintenance plan. Some states have fees involved in placing caches in their parks, limits on how many caches per park they will permit (regardless of how large the park is) and firm time limits on how long a cache can be in place.

Ok, I will state this in another way.Stringent was apparently the wrong word to use, and not meant in the negative way that you interpreted it. My point in the whole thing, was that Minnesota (and now Utah, as Hydnsek mentioned) literally ask, for caches to be placed in their State Parks. Here in Washington State, there are still rules and regulations/ guidelines to follow in order to place one in one of our parks, and it is not an advertised invite by them, as in Minnesota and Utah. Not saying the things that our State Parks request we do, to place one here are wrong (or difficult to complete), but they are not asking, like the other states.

I feel we have a very beautiful state, and I am sure the state parks think so too, hence the guidelines they have in place in regards to geocaching and protecting the environment.....not a bad thing.

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

 

I'd hardly call the Washington State policy stringent. They are asking you to speak to the ranger, describe your cache location and fill out a contact information sheet. They do have the right to say no to a location and/or suggest a better one and ask that you agree to a maintenance plan. Some states have fees involved in placing caches in their parks, limits on how many caches per park they will permit (regardless of how large the park is) and firm time limits on how long a cache can be in place.

Ok, I will state this in another way.Stringent was apparently the wrong word to use, and not meant in the negative way that you interpreted it. My point in the whole thing, was that Minnesota (and now Utah, as Hydnsek mentioned) literally ask, for caches to be placed in their State Parks. Here in Washington State, there are still rules and regulations/ guidelines to follow in order to place one in one of our parks, and it is not an advertised invite by them, as in Minnesota and Utah. Not saying the things that our State Parks request we do, to place one here are wrong (or difficult to complete), but they are not asking, like the other states.

I feel we have a very beautiful state, and I am sure the state parks think so too, hence the guidelines they have in place in regards to geocaching and protecting the environment.....not a bad thing.

 

No, I think stringent is the correct term. I'm trying to get one placed in a state park nearby.

 

1. The application has to be approved by authorities higher than local level. No telling how long that will take.

2. The permit expires Dec. 31 this year, yes, about 9 months. The approval cycle eats into this time.

3. I have to agree to maintain the cache on a monthly basis. The state level approval can add even more

restrictions and requirements, ones that I don't even know about yet.

4. I have to display special boilerplate on the cache page.

5. If I want to go beyond the nine months I have to go through this whole mess again.

 

MN, UT and perhaps other states ASK for caches to be placed in their parks. WA encourages you to NOT place a cache. Stringent, difficult, bothersome and many other terms come to mind. This will probably be the first and last cache I place in state parks.

 

Jim

Link to comment

Maybe the "Land of of Ten Thousand Lakes", does not have such a stringent policy in place, regarding their State Parks, and the environmental impact on them, as Washington State does.

Other than that, I am not sure, but I am glad to see the support for Geocaching on such a level!

 

I'd hardly call the Washington State policy stringent. They are asking you to speak to the ranger, describe your cache location and fill out a contact information sheet. They do have the right to say no to a location and/or suggest a better one and ask that you agree to a maintenance plan. Some states have fees involved in placing caches in their parks, limits on how many caches per park they will permit (regardless of how large the park is) and firm time limits on how long a cache can be in place.

Ok, I will state this in another way.Stringent was apparently the wrong word to use, and not meant in the negative way that you interpreted it. My point in the whole thing, was that Minnesota (and now Utah, as Hydnsek mentioned) literally ask, for caches to be placed in their State Parks. Here in Washington State, there are still rules and regulations/ guidelines to follow in order to place one in one of our parks, and it is not an advertised invite by them, as in Minnesota and Utah. Not saying the things that our State Parks request we do, to place one here are wrong (or difficult to complete), but they are not asking, like the other states.

I feel we have a very beautiful state, and I am sure the state parks think so too, hence the guidelines they have in place in regards to geocaching and protecting the environment.....not a bad thing.

 

No, I think stringent is the correct term. I'm trying to get one placed in a state park nearby.

 

1. The application has to be approved by authorities higher than local level. No telling how long that will take.

2. The permit expires Dec. 31 this year, yes, about 9 months. The approval cycle eats into this time.

3. I have to agree to maintain the cache on a monthly basis. The state level approval can add even more

restrictions and requirements, ones that I don't even know about yet.

4. I have to display special boilerplate on the cache page.

5. If I want to go beyond the nine months I have to go through this whole mess again.

 

MN, UT and perhaps other states ASK for caches to be placed in their parks. WA encourages you to NOT place a cache. Stringent, difficult, bothersome and many other terms come to mind. This will probably be the first and last cache I place in state parks.

 

Jim

Sounds like you just have a particularly 'stringent' park authority. I know many folks who've placed caches in state parks who haven't experienced any of the things you list. The Barnabirdy(s), for example, have 4 caches in a state park near them. They said it took 10 minutes to visit the ranger, do the paperwork, and get approval. No higher-ups, no waiting period, no expiration date, no monthly checks, no special boilerplate on the pages, and no onerous renewal process.

Link to comment

Sounds like you just have a particularly 'stringent' park authority. I know many folks who've placed caches in state parks who haven't experienced any of the things you list. The Barnabirdy(s), for example, have 4 caches in a state park near them. They said it took 10 minutes to visit the ranger, do the paperwork, and get approval. No higher-ups, no waiting period, no expiration date, no monthly checks, no special boilerplate on the pages, and no onerous renewal process.

Actually, Abby, the situation you describe is one of the ranger ignoring the Parks policy. The policy clearly requires the ranger to approve the cache container (including "inspection prior to placement"); requires the ranger to "pre-approve" the "exact location" of the cache; requires the approval of two higher-up administrators (the Regional Programs and Services Manager and the Regional Stewardship Manager); imposes a one-year expiration with a single one-year renewal; imposes a requirement that caches "must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days," including proof of each such visit to the ranger; requires the boilerplate on the listing page ("Notice on geocache web site must state the following information..."); etc. I respectfully submit that the State Parks policy - and its "stringency" - should be judged by what it actually requires, not by what some rangers choose to ignore.

 

And... Okay, I can't help myself; stop reading now if you've heard this one before, but I feel compelled to warn fellow cachers anytime this subject comes up. The State Parks policy also requires the placer to sign the following indemnification statement: "The geocache owner hereby agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the state of Washington, State Parks, its employees, agents and assigns, from and against all claims, suits or actions arising from the placement, movement or removal of the geocache, or resulting from the contents of the geocache, or the use or misuse of said contents." If you sign this statement, and someone decides to "misuse" the contents of the cache - or simply gets hurt searching for it - you are on the hook for defending and indemnifying the state. Truly, nobody with assets worth protecting should sign this.

Edited by Lightning Jeff
Link to comment

Sounds like you just have a particularly 'stringent' park authority. I know many folks who've placed caches in state parks who haven't experienced any of the things you list. The Barnabirdy(s), for example, have 4 caches in a state park near them. They said it took 10 minutes to visit the ranger, do the paperwork, and get approval. No higher-ups, no waiting period, no expiration date, no monthly checks, no special boilerplate on the pages, and no onerous renewal process.

Actually, Abby, the situation you describe is one of the ranger ignoring the Parks policy. The policy clearly requires the ranger to approve the cache container (including "inspection prior to placement"); requires the ranger to "pre-approve" the "exact location" of the cache; requires the approval of two higher-up administrators (the Regional Programs and Services Manager and the Regional Stewardship Manager); imposes a one-year expiration with a single one-year renewal; imposes a requirement that caches "must be checked by the geocache owner at least every 90 days," including proof of each such visit to the ranger; requires the boilerplate on the listing page ("Notice on geocache web site must state the following information..."); etc. I respectfully submit that the State Parks policy - and its "stringency" - should be judged by what it actually requires, not by what some rangers choose to ignore.

The rangers followed the State Park geocaching policy pretty much. I didn't feel the need to spell out the details, but perhaps I was a bit glib. My point was that it doesn't HAVE to be overly onerous to place a cache in a state park, depends on the park and the rangers - and the relationship you establish with them. However, you are right; if the rangers decide to follow the exact letter of the guidelines, it could be a bit tedious.

 

But I don't want you to think the rangers in my example were slackers ignoring the guidelines, so I'll clarify: The four caches were placed in collaboration with the park rangers (two of the caches are named after them!), who helped select the locations and approved the containers. They thought geocaching was a great recreational activity for their state park, and the Barnabirdy(s) gained their trust and created a good relationship. Ok so far? All four were placed before the new state park caching policy was enacted, so both the cachers and rangers were ahead of the curve. Once the new policy came out, the Barnabirdy(s) had it easy - they visited the rangers, discussed the new guidelines, filled out the paperwork, and got instant approval for the pre-existing caches. They check on their caches and visit with the rangers as needed; one cache has been relocated (again with input from the rangers) due to foot traffic creating too much of a social trail. It's true the cache pages don't have the 'boilerplate' language, and I don't know if they do formal 90-day visits or annual renewals, but it seems like they're honoring the spirit of the guidelines if not the exact letter (and were doing so before the policy was enacted). Sounds like a win-win to me.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Really glad to have found this thread. Now I see why there are no caches in Discovery.

 

So much to think about....

 

1. So, some parks want Geocaches because it brings new "users" to the park who otherwise would have missed it? I can completely understand this. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I've seen over a dozen new parks and nature preserves just in the last two months, when out caching.

 

2. Discovery park was supposedly overrun with cachers, so they asked the caches to be removed. Too bad! But I know that when I'm desperate to find a cache, the temptation to bushwhack is high, even though it's usually futile. But that bushwhacking hurts the flora. If I multiply the damage I know I've caused during my own searches by 100x, I can readily see their point.

On the other hand, their not even attempting to work with cachers to set up some approved caches makes me wonder what's up with that. No sense of cooperation? How did Geocaching and Discovery Park get so at odds?

 

3. Funny story: Many years ago, GPSr in hand, I used to drop an object in a brushy area, mark its coords, and try to find it later. Didn't even know about Geocaching...this was in 2001 or 2002, well before it became popular. Where did I do this experimenting? Discovery Park!

Edited by tfc0869
Link to comment

....2. Discovery park was supposedly overrun with cachers, so they asked the caches to be removed. Too bad! But I know that when I'm desperate to find a cache, the temptation to bushwhack is high, even though it's usually futile. But that bushwhacking hurts the flora. If I multiply the damage I know I've caused during my own searches by 100x, I can readily see their point. ...

 

If the park is so sensative that it can't handle casual recreational activities it really serves no purpose. At that point they should drop "park" from the name, remove the developed portions that encourage casual recreational use and let it be open space free for any who wish to come out and enjoy it.

 

If bushwacking truly hurt the flora...our billions of ancesters would have trodden this earths flora flat. Caching at best can cause a temporary impact. Fixed as soon as the cache is archived. All caches are temporary. The majority of caches that I have found have caused no noticable impact.

Link to comment

 

How did Geocaching and Discovery Park get so at odds?

 

There were caches found by park employees placed in active bird's nests according to reports I have heard from the parks people. I don't know whether that one was listed by geocaching.com or not. I suspect not, but that is neither here nor there. The parks people don't understand that it could have been a Navicache, a Terracache or even a Letterbox. There were other places in the park where social trails had developed leading to caches. Was there an over-reaction by the park people, probably.

 

At this point it is "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." We are working to try to change their attitude about our activity, but it takes a long time to reestablish trust. One way we are trying to do this is through helping them with cleaning up the beach at the park. The second of two CITOs is this coming Saturday. Come on down and help us convince them that we care about the park. This one CITO won't change their mind, but it will help. The last one opened some eyes.

Link to comment

....2. Discovery park was supposedly overrun with cachers, so they asked the caches to be removed. Too bad! But I know that when I'm desperate to find a cache, the temptation to bushwhack is high, even though it's usually futile. But that bushwhacking hurts the flora. If I multiply the damage I know I've caused during my own searches by 100x, I can readily see their point. ...

 

If the park is so sensative that it can't handle casual recreational activities it really serves no purpose. At that point they should drop "park" from the name, remove the developed portions that encourage casual recreational use and let it be open space free for any who wish to come out and enjoy it.

 

If bushwacking truly hurt the flora...our billions of ancesters would have trodden this earths flora flat. Caching at best can cause a temporary impact. Fixed as soon as the cache is archived. All caches are temporary. The majority of caches that I have found have caused no noticable impact.

 

"Park" can have several definitions and does not always have to be compatable with recreational usage.

 

This particular park was a military radar installation of which a small portion remains active. It is slowly being reclaimed by nature and some sensitive speicies have taken residence there. This is an evolving park worth taking notice.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

There were caches found by park employees placed in active bird's nests according to reports I have heard from the parks people.

After poring through every record Seattle says they have on the issue of geocaching and letterboxing, I've seen no evidence that that was anything more than a myth. If it happened, Seattle has absolutely no record of it. That's a mighty thin reed upon which to build policy, but neither that fact nor anything else seems to have lessened their commitment to it.

Edited by Lightning Jeff
Link to comment

There were caches found by park employees placed in active bird's nests according to reports I have heard from the parks people.

After poring through every record Seattle says they have on the issue of geocaching and letterboxing, I've seen no evidence that that was anything more than a myth. If it happened, Seattle has absolutely no record of it. That's a mighty thin reed upon which to build policy, but neither that fact nor anything else seems to have lessened their commitment to it.

Yeah, but when has Seattle let facts get in the way of policy.

Link to comment

There were caches found by park employees placed in active bird's nests according to reports I have heard from the parks people.

After poring through every record Seattle says they have on the issue of geocaching and letterboxing, I've seen no evidence that that was anything more than a myth. If it happened, Seattle has absolutely no record of it. That's a mighty thin reed upon which to build policy, but neither that fact nor anything else seems to have lessened their commitment to it.

The problem here is that we are battling perception and not necessarily things that have been recorded. Whether this is a myth or not is not the issue. They perceive cachers as problems for the environment and we have to try to change that perception.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, it looks like the 2 CITOs in Discovery Park didn't help the cause much. Oh well...

Nobody ever said that the CITOs in Discovery Park would change the mind of the parks folks. This is not going to be a short process because it involves some mind sets that people have about geocaching. That is not going to happen with a couple of small events at the park. Much of the work will be behind the scenes and some of that is underway.

 

The decision to close the park was not made overnight, it took a few years of noticing things around the park. It will not be changed overnight either. It will take a few years to regain the trust that was lost. Why it was lost is not important, it was lost.

Link to comment

 

The decision to close the park was not made overnight, it took a few years of noticing things around the park. It will not be changed overnight either. It will take a few years to regain the trust that was lost. Why it was lost is not important, it was lost.

 

Actually I think the most important thing here is why the trust was lost.

 

If we do not know that and take a look at that it is history that is bound to repeat itself, as it already has in the Mercer Slough's this week.

 

Unless we take a look at why the trust was lost, it will continue to be lost in other parks, and we will lose more and more parkland for the use of geocaching. Maybe someday it could even become illegal everywhere.

 

"Those who do not learn from their lessons are bound to repeat them."

 

If we do not know why we lost the trust in that park, if we someday are allowed back in, we will just be kicked out again for not learning our lesson of why we were kicked out to start with.

 

If we learn from this and change our ways, then the game will go on.

 

It is bound to repeat itself elsewhere if we don't spread the word too.

I got verbally beaten down in another thread in the main forums because I said that some geocachers had trashed some woods and that was not good. They insisted the woods would just grow back, and it was not a problem, and it was unlikely it was cachers anyway.

Cachers can and do cause damage. We may need to look at existing caches in some parks that are causing damage (I can name a few) and take steps in other parks BEFORE we are kicked out.

 

Once caches are reviewed they're assumed to be fine. This is not always the case.

We've got a problem here that could just get worse as the game grows if steps are not taken elsewhere.

 

I don't want to sign on one day and see that geocaching has been outlawed.

Link to comment

I think if you read this thread from the beginning, you'll see the reasons for this particular park were discussed ad nauseum and what it would take to regain that trust, if at all, for this park.

What TotemLake said. Weightman has been involved in the Discovery Park issue from the start (two years), knows more than most, has worked with the park land managers, and offers good insights.

 

Sol Seaker, you're relatively new to this activity, so it might be wise to bone up on a subject before making uninformed comments / assumptions / judgments. The comment about Mercer Slough is also incorrect; they are supportive of geocaching, as indicated in that thread, they just want to review the cache placements (they've admitted their emails were perhaps a bit overstated "to get your attention").

 

My observation, from working with several park systems, is that geocaching is gaining greater acceptance, not less. So I disagree with your comments that geocaching could become "illegal" or "outlawed." Most land managers are interested in activities that will benefit their parks and encourage public support, esp. in times of budget shortfalls. I've found that it's often just a matter of educating them on geocaching, indicating our willingness to work with them and adhere to park policies, and making them comfortable that we understand their concerns and needs. Most park managers also understand that there are always a few "bad apples," whether it's hikers, campers, or geocachers, but that the majority of participants are conscientious, well-intentioned visitors. (Mercer Slough made this point specifically to allay our concerns; they do not share Discovery Park's misconceptions.)

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

I think if you read this thread from the beginning, you'll see the reasons for this particular park were discussed ad nauseum . . .

Yup. Unfortunately, at least some of the stated reasons were pure hokum and that makes it difficult to address their concern. But do read the earlier posts on this subject.

 

My observation, from working with several park systems, is that geocaching is gaining greater acceptance, not less.

Yes! I think that's due in no small part to people like Abby who calmly and productively work with land managers (versus the approach some of us might be inclined to take :D ). I have no inside information other than what I learned from my public records request, but the Discovery Park situation still feels like a lost cause. However, it seems like things are looking up elsewhere, relatively speaking. So thanks to the calm heads who work on land access issues on our behalf!

Link to comment

Thanks to Rodgowdy, we now have a cache once again in Discovery Park.

 

Caching Again In Discovery Park was just published. It does contain some restrictions, notably it is not available at night. Hopefully we can show the staff at the park that we are, indeed, good land managers.

 

Way to go Rod.

Yes, this is a HUGE win for geocaching in Seattle!

 

As many of you know, Discovery Park, one of Seattle's premier parks, banned geocaching in November 2007, forcing archival of all caches. Despite repeated efforts to get a discussion going, we've had no movement until now.

 

On March 3, Weightman, rodgowdy, and I met with key personnel at Seattle City Parks (SCP) – and they agreed to reintroduce geocaching in Discovery Park on a limited basis as part of WSGA's Park Liaison Program, with rodgowdy as their Geocaching Liaison. Further, SCP confirmed there are no longer plans to ban caching at Seattle’s other “natural” parks, including Carkeek, Camp Long, Lincoln, and Seward.

 

It helped that WSGA had demonstrated our willingness to work with Seattle Parks – through our two Beach Cleanup CITOs at Discovery last year, through our prompt action when Friends of Seward Park contacted us last month for a cache removal, through rodgowdy’s joining Friends of Discovery Park, etc.

 

SCP said they now viewed geocaching as a positive recreational activity and wanted to find the right way to reintroduce it to Discovery Park, with appropriate guidelines to address their concerns (e.g., off-trail activity, sensitive habitat areas, saturation, crowd issues). They liked the sound of WSGA's Park Liaison Program, in which a member of our Parks Advocacy Committee works directly with the designated park(s). This liaison collaborates with the parks to develop appropriate guidelines, monitors cache activity, and enforces both gc.com and park guidelines.

 

As mentioned, rodgowdy volunteered to be the Geocaching Liaison, and has quickly established a good relationship with the Discovery folks, resulting in this new cache plus plans for a CITO and potential additional cache placements.

 

A big shout-out to rodgowdy and Weightman for working with me over the past year to get us to this stage. You guys rock!

 

hydnsek

WSGA Parks Advocacy Committee Chair

Link to comment

That's a problem i seen allot in seattle and now in az where i live, That's why many many times i have suggested less harder cachs mean less damage, I cant tell you how many cach locations i have found with 4 and 5 stars look like they have been very very vandalised, this weekend to the fact i found a 4 star and the bricks, rocks, pushes been pushed on and stepped on,

Link to comment

I'm pleased to report that Seattle's Discovery Park is now allowing cache placements by folks other than rodgowdy. :blink: However, rodgowdy remains our Discovery Geocaching Liaison, and will be vetting all caches with Discovery personnel before they are allowed to be published.

 

Below is the new procedure that Discovery and WSGA worked out for publishing caches at Discovery Park. Groundspeak and the reviewers have been notified of the new policy.

 

The policy: Geocaches may be placed in Discovery Park with the explicit permission of Discovery personnel, arranged through rodgowdy, the geocaching liaison. Contact rodgowdy to have your cache reviewed and approved BEFORE you submit it to Groundspeak for publication.

 

If a geocache is submitted that's in Seattle's Discovery Park:

  • It should have a Reviewer Note stating that it's been reviewed and has permission from rodgowdy and the Discovery contact (with a specific name and title). Ideally, the approval email is pasted into the note. The cache page should have a permission statement at bottom: "This cache placement was approved by Discovery Park." These caches may be published. The reviewer may email rodgowdy if desired to verify permissions.
  • If no permission is provided with the cache submission, the reviewer should deny publication and refer the cacher to rodgowdy to obtain the necessary approval, then resubmit the cache.
Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...