Reviewer Homework

[+Puppy Dawg]

linky

 

This was after a different reviewer published it. Have reviewers ever assigned you homework?

Edited July 20, 2009 by GeoBigDawg

[jholly]

So...

 

To make a long story short, we hid a cache. The reviewer said its in a State Park, make sure it meets deez guidelines. It did so we told her? that and it got published. Then we got a new reviewer note: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...aa-2209377d613a

 

Oh gosh, here we go. We thought it was in one district of the state park so we contacted them, no its in a different one. The right one was nonresponsive. So we emailed a general one about you know can you put caches here, and they gave the guidelines. (this time in PDF form!)

 

Have reviewers ever assigned you homework? Did you do it?

 

Well I expect the penalty for not doing the homework is having the cache archived. It is the hiders responsibility to have adequate permission for the hide, not the reviewers responsibility. I think what this reviewer is saying in a nice way is show me the proof or your cache goes poof. I think if I wanted to continue to have a cache there I would provide what information the reviewer wanted. If I found out I could not have a cache there then I would archive it.

 

Jim

[+Puppy Dawg]

We emailed the SP general site (couldn't figure out who the superintendent was) and they gave me a link to a PDF file of the guidelines. Lots of caches are out here, some of which have historical signifigance. I'd hate to see them all crashing down...

 

BTW it meets their guidelines

[+paleolith]

GeoBigDawg,

 

Some of us who cache in the area have been trying to figure out how best to approach the parks superintendent. (Yeah, I have his email address, but would prefer to have a plan before using it.) Email me if you're interested in joining the effort. I know that you've met at least one of the other interested cachers.

 

Edward

[jholly]

We emailed the SP general site (couldn't figure out who the superintendent was) and they gave me a link to a PDF file of the guidelines. Lots of caches are out here, some of which have historical signifigance. I'd hate to see them all crashing down...

 

BTW it meets their guidelines

 

The GC guidelines state that prior published caches do not generate a precedence. The other caches are immaterial far as yours is concerned. Do you know your the only one that got the email? Perhaps the other owners also got the email. It is also immaterial if the hide meets the general guidelines of the state parks. The question is does *this* state park allow caching. I can see that some parks might be exempted for environment reasons. The other caches might have been placed before state park guidelines went into effect and hence slipped under the radar. It sounds like the homework assignment is not done, the information the reviewer has does not list this park as allowing caches.

 

Jim

[knowschad]

The reviewer, rather than finding out for themselves if this particular State Park allows caches, is asking the cache owner to verify it and let them know? I'd think that a reviewer would rather have more solid information on the State Park's policy than to rely on the word on a cache hider in a case like this.

 

But, that said... I am not a reviewer (nor would I want their headaches, either!) and I don't really know what their responsibilities are in matters like this. This could be normal, for all I know.

[Keystone]

I've given out two homework assignments in just the past week. Both relate to interpretive questions or changes in existing geocaching policies adopted by major land managers, affecting properties and caches hundreds of miles away from me.

 

With dozens of policies to keep track of within my review territory, and new ones popping up all the time, it's impossible to keep track of every detail. Nothing beats direct contact with a local user of the park or forest, so a personal visit from a geocacher wanting to hide a cache can be preferable to an e-mail or phone call from a volunteer cache reviewer who may live a long distance away.

 

Look at it this way: if the reviewer gives out a homework assignment, it means he or she trusts you to do a good job representing our activity with land managers and to report back with accurate answers. Take it as a compliment. If I don't know the geocacher whose cache poses an issue, I may just say "no" or do the research myself or ask another cacher for help.

[+va griz]

I've been assigned homework as well, but it's easy to understand if you look at it from the reviewers point of view. If it seems like a chore to me, an individual cacher, imagine the burden on one person (a volunteer) doing it hundreds of times for an entire state. Even if they paid them there wouldn't be enough time in a day to run down every question each time it came up.

 

I'm doing a cache now that has taken about two weeks for the park supervisor (a new guy is doing the job) to get back to me. I'm sure if the reviewer was the point of contact the cache owner would be pestering them after a week to hurry up. A no win for them, so we have to do our own homework.

 

Sorry to be long winded, good luck on the permission.

[+tozainamboku]

GeoBigDawg,

 

Some of us who cache in the area have been trying to figure out how best to approach the parks superintendent. (Yeah, I have his email address, but would prefer to have a plan before using it.) Email me if you're interested in joining the effort. I know that you've met at least one of the other interested cachers.

 

Edward

The California State Parks website posted this list of parks that allow geocaching. There is no clear indication of why some parks are not list. It may be that those parks are still evaluating the policy. It may be that those parks simply want to limit caches by making cachers contact the superintendent for permission on a case by case basis. The California reviewers are trying to work out how they are going to comply with the new State Parks guidelines. Perhaps by assigning homework to those cachers who want to place caches in these parks they can get a better feel for what the policy actually is.

 

The parks in the Santa Monica Mountains are already pretty cache rich. My guess is that the superintendents for these parks probably didn't simply want to add these parks to the list of State Parks that allow geocaching because that might result in a jump in the numbers of caches. Perhaps they will still approve caches on an individual basis or perhaps they simply want a moratorium on new caches for a short time while they assess the impact of the caches already in the park. There is probably some concern over a small number of caches placed in designated wilderness or other sensitive areas in this particular park. Fortunately, the group that paleolith is associated with not only geocaches in the area but also has many members who volunteer with a group that maintains the trails in this park and others in the Santa Monica Mountains. They have worked with both the State Parks and the NPS for a number of years. Another active cacher is a docent at Malibu Creek State Park. There are many cachers that have very good relations with the superintendents of these parks and I am confident that geocaching will have a future here because of them.

[+Puppy Dawg]

Here's what...

 

The first reviewer asked me to make sure it met deez guidelines: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665

 

Which it did, so I told her? that and she? published it. The the other reviewer posted his? note. Read post #3 for what happened after that...

 

I was sent this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/20...delines.pdf.pdf

[+Castle Mischief]

Here's what...

 

The first reviewer asked me to make sure it met deez guidelines: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665

 

Which it did, so I told her? that and she? published it. The the other reviewer posted his? note. Read post #3 for what happened after that...

 

I was sent this: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/712/files/20...delines.pdf.pdf

 

Sometimes new information bubbles to the top. Sometimes things change. It's all in the best interest of the hobby. Either adapt to the ever-changing field of play or archive your caches. I wouldn't have any problems "doing homework" to keep a cache in place if I felt that it would avoid any negative press down the road. The reviewers have more important work to do. I'm willing to bet that the average reviewer vets more caches in a certain time frame than most of us submit caches. It's your baby, do your part to keep it current with the local regulations.

[+Puppy Dawg]

I didn't mind he homework. Just thought it wa a bit strange, that's all. The intent of this forum was to see if its happened to other people, and how it works.

[+paleolith]

GeoBigDawg,

 

tozainamboku explained it pretty well. The Ca SP service has issued geocaching guidelines, but they are guidelines to the district superintendents. From that page:

 

California State Parks has reviewed the issues and concerns associated with geocaching activities and has determined the best method for the management of this activity is to leave it to the discretion of the District Superintendent.

 

They have also published a list of Parks Allowing Geocaching. The parks in the Santa Monica Mountains are not on the list. And yet these are among the most cache-dense parks in the state. So as toz said, the best guess is that the park staff are still trying to develop the district policy. Parks have long been understaffed, and the current crisis is only making that worse, so it's not like they have spare staff sitting around that they can assign. (In April, about 170 volunteers showed up at Point Mugu SP to work on trails, camping about a mile from your new cache. At least on Sunday -- I'm not sure about Saturday -- the park ranger with the group was volunteering his time, because the park had only one ranger on duty for the entire park. That's the condition of staffing.)

 

I don't know whether you are the only one to receive this "homework", though I've heard about it verbally from other sources. It's obvious what's going on. The reviewers are trying to make sure that caches meet guidelines established by land management agencies. But the reviewers are caught in the middle, because of the published "guidelines to district managers" and the fact that these parks are not on the published list. The reviewers don't have any magic contacts, so all they can do is to suggest that local cachers try to resolve the matter.

 

So don't take it personally. The reviewers are just looking for ways to clear the water. And as you point out, it was just a comment -- they did not delay publication of your cache. It's homework, but you already got your grade for the semester ...

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

I should add that the web page is later than the PDF. You would be justified in pointing out (gently please) to the reviewer who sent you a link to the PDF that it differs in important aspects from the later version. Most importantly, the PDF claimed to set guidelines for all California State Parks, but the revision makes them guidelines for the district superintendents and explicitly says that statewide guidelines cannot take into account all the widely varying conditions in the state.

 

EDIT: oops, I realize you said it was someone in State Parks who linked you to the PDF. Well, the point remains.

 

Edward

Edited July 21, 2009 by paleolith

[+EvanMinn]

Here's what...

 

The first reviewer asked me to make sure it met deez guidelines: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665

 

Which it did, ...

 

The PDF at that link says:

 

"geocaching may be permitted [in these unit classifications] (when approved by the District Superintendent):"

 

For you to say so unequivocally that it meets those guidelines, you must have some evidence that the District Superintendent approved geocaches in that park. Just send the reviewer that evidence.

 

If you don't have such evidence, then you aren't really being fully honest with the reviewer (or us) because you don't really know for sure that it meets the guidelines but are telling them (and us) it does.

Edited July 21, 2009 by EvanMinn