NPS & caching

[+eflyguy]

Edit: wow - I had no idea virtuals were no longer allowed. No problem, I prefer a physical cache as an end point anyway.

 

I want to place a multi that requires visiting a wonderful local park. I know NPS cache's are prohibited (in general), but is that restricted to actual placement of the cache?

 

I plan to either:

- end with either clues obtained from the visit (virtual), (see edit, above)

or

- end with a cache located outside the park (but nearby.)

 

What about the start point? Do I have to locate the start outside of the park as well?

 

Searched here and monitored these discussions but can't find anything that really covers what I want to do.

Thx!

..a

Edited October 26, 2009 by eflyguy

[+Coyote's Girl]

If you cannot place a cache in the park, here's what Id do. Have a clue-cache outside the park someplace (An LPC at McYucks or some other non-nationa park place nearby) with the co-ords to the place you want them to visit. Once there, they will have to get clues to thier next destination (The cache location) by decrypting a key they either obtain from your LPC clue or the cache page itself. Something like "Look at the plaque that's above the overlook. The lines are numberd 1-17. Your clue is Line 1, 3rd letter, 17th letter, 43rd letter..." Each letter corosponding to a number 1-9 (Zeroes could be added somehow, but I'm not sure at the moment) to get the co-ords for your final. SO not only do they have to visit the destination, they have to read about it too. Good luck!

[+palmetto]

I think the best advice I can give you would be to contact the reviewer in the area.

I'd guess that any virtual points for a geocache need permission in a National Park. If the NPS is in Georgia, contact erik88l-r.

[+eflyguy]

Butterfly Fox - thanks, that is sort of what I had in mind. A puzzle/multi where the first location gave you what you needed to get to the first spot in the park, which then leads you to the next, etc.

 

Palmetto - thx - I was searching for that at the moment!

..a

[Keystone]

Palmetto's advice is dead-on, as usual.

 

Reviewers will question permission for even virtual waypoints on NPS-managed property.

 

I have an example in my review territory where the NPS said "NO" to even a virtual waypoint at the site, which is freely open to the public for visitation.

[+eflyguy]

My local reviewer says it's fine to have a virtual stage within the park boundary.

 

I'm basically looking to have people go for a hike thru the woods to gather clues to find the final cache, which will be outside the park.

 

It's a beautiful park, I walk our dogs there every day that it's not raining..

..a

[Keystone]

It is true that it's "fine" to have a virtual cache location on land managed by NPS. It's also "fine" to have a physical cache there.

 

But it is also true that permission from the local NPS facility manager is required, even for virtual waypoiknts. Groundspeak reinforced that to the volunteer cache reviewers last year as something we need to check for, following the adoption of the current NPS policy framework. That advice has not been retracted or otherwise modified.

[+ecanderson]

But it is also true that permission from the local NPS facility manager is required, even for virtual waypoiknts.

Now that's bogus. Are they singling out geocaching, or is it now illegal to point the general public to a specific location in a national park? If I write a news article extolling the view at a specific point, am I in violation of some sort of NPS rule?

[+eflyguy]

Not according to my local reviewer. As long as I don't place the final cache within the park, he says I'm fine.

 

Dozens of people visit each day - possible hundreds on weekends. I'll be showing people a few sights along the way, and having them locate and use data on a couple of existing objects in order to calculate the location of the actual cache - which will be nearby but off park property. It will be a hike, I don't expect it to be inundated with a large number of cachers daily!

 

Moving along..

..a

[Tahosa and Sons]

I would post the coordinates that are in NPS jurisdiction as a waypoint, and let the seekers know that it is NPS lands, and that they may have to pay a fee to gain entrance to the park. Amd then they can go read the sign just like any ordinary tourist. Unless cachers are not considered tourists.

As far as I know if there is nothing there except what they put there we still have the freedom of speech and if we want to tell someone where to look we are allowed to do just that.

[+CacheDrone]

Not according to my local reviewer. As long as I don't place the final cache within the park, he says I'm fine.

 

Dozens of people visit each day - possible hundreds on weekends. I'll be showing people a few sights along the way, and having them locate and use data on a couple of existing objects in order to calculate the location of the actual cache - which will be nearby but off park property. It will be a hike, I don't expect it to be inundated with a large number of cachers daily!

 

Moving along..

..a

 

Then I would hope that you should have no trouble getting permission from the NPS representative for the use of "logical" points for redirection. Without that permission, it is my understanding that a geocache should not be published that involves points, logical or physical, that are within the boundaries of a National Park Service property. Ask them! Help them understand the benefits and maybe they will allow it. NPS already has the position that they must give permission for "Virtual Caches" (even though they won't be published here anymore), so any "logical point" would be viewed under the same umbrella.

 

As a Canadian Reviewer, I am bound by the same conditions here in our National Park system and have seen the relevant discussions about this topic.

 

 

CD

[+ecanderson]

As a Canadian Reviewer, I am bound by the same conditions here in our National Park system and have seen the relevant discussions about this topic.

I'll ask the same question of you that I did of Keystone. If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks, drawing people to it, am I in violation of some Canadian park statute/law/regulation? If not, the selective denial of publication of similar statements in a different forum would, one imagines, be seen by any court as a selective denial of speech. What kind of goofy systems do our respective countries have here? If no permission is required for a print publication, no permission should be required elsewhere, either.

 

Of interest to either reviewer who might know -- is this same proscription against referencing virtual points in parks equally applied to Waymarking?

Edited October 28, 2009 by ecanderson

[+Touchstone]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

[+ecanderson]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

Right - so directing someone to a virtual waypoint within a park is unlawful, but directing someone to the same point in a newspaper article (with a vastly larger readership) isn't? Sorry - there's something very wrong about that.

 

By implication, no Waymarking will be allowed in any National Park without permission, either? I've not seen that restriction mentioned anywhere in the forums there.

[+JohnE5]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

Right - so directing someone to a virtual waypoint within a park is unlawful, but directing someone to the same point in a newspaper article (with a vastly larger readership) isn't? Sorry - there's something very wrong about that.

 

By implication, no Waymarking will be allowed in any National Park without permission, either? I've not seen that restriction mentioned anywhere in the forums there.

LOL SNAP! Better take down Waymarking.com!

[+eflyguy]

The cache location requirements state "Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)."

 

The cache will not be on this land, it will be located elsewhere.

 

The cache will require cachers to visit this land, but clearly state (a) they have to pay to park and ( that nothing other than observation of existing objects be performed.

 

As such, my local reviewer, who I trust to review my cache appropriately, states that the cache will be fine.

 

I will obtain permission to place the physical cache, however.

..a

[+CacheDrone]

While I am only a volunteer, it is not Groundspeak that created the restrictions in currently place for National Parks. The National Park Service has the right to create policies that restrict certain activities from occurring on lands under their management. Identifying other activities that are permitted is not relevant.

 

Again, if you wish to create a geocaching experience that utilizes points within a National Park then you will need to get permission from said park. If there is a reason that people are unwilling to get such permissions, then that demonstrates why the geocache should not be published.

 

In short, if you want to change the current NPS position on geocaching then you need to approach NPS.

 

edit: wrong word

Edited October 28, 2009 by CacheDrone

[+briansnat]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

Right - so directing someone to a virtual waypoint within a park is unlawful, but directing someone to the same point in a newspaper article (with a vastly larger readership) isn't? Sorry - there's something very wrong about that.

 

By implication, no Waymarking will be allowed in any National Park without permission, either? I've not seen that restriction mentioned anywhere in the forums there.

 

I'm sure the posting of virtual coordinates is a free speech issue and a ban wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. Posting of coordinates to draw people to a spot is no different than posting a photo or writing a magazine article drawing people to the same spot (in fact magazine articles sometimes come with coordinates these days).

 

We could allow virtual coordinates and what are they going to do? Go and remove the view at the coordinates? Of course not. Ban GPS use in the parks? I'm sure hikers, birders, snowmobilers and other GPS users would scream loudly. Sue this website? I doubt they'd stand a chance of winning, but I also doubt Groundspeak wants to shell out money to defend such a suit.

 

As it stands the NPS thinks they have the authority and right to ban virtual waypoints. They probably don't but because we're trying to play nice with them in hopes of geocaching gaining acceptance with them we let them think they do.

Edited October 28, 2009 by briansnat

[+eflyguy]

Guidance has been issued to the park service.

www.nps.gov/policy/gpsguidance.pdf

Specifically: "Conditions may exist where a properly managed GPS activity would be complementary to the park’s education mission, .."

 

That is the precise goal of my cache. I will contact the manager of the park in question for further discussion.

..a

[+JohnE5]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

Right - so directing someone to a virtual waypoint within a park is unlawful, but directing someone to the same point in a newspaper article (with a vastly larger readership) isn't? Sorry - there's something very wrong about that.

 

By implication, no Waymarking will be allowed in any National Park without permission, either? I've not seen that restriction mentioned anywhere in the forums there.

 

I'm sure the posting of virtual coordinates is a free speech issue and a ban wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. Posting of coordinates to draw people to a spot is no different than posting a photo or writing a magazine article drawing people to the same spot (in fact magazine articles sometimes come with coordinates these days).

 

We could allow virtual coordinates and what are they going to do? Go and remove the view at the coordinates? Of course not. Ban GPS use in the parks? I'm sure hikers, birders, snowmobilers and other GPS users would scream loudly. Sue this website? I doubt they'd stand a chance of winning, but I also doubt Groundspeak wants to shell out money to defend such a suit.

 

As it stands the NPS thinks they have the authority and right to ban virtual waypoints. They probably don't but because we're trying to play nice with them in hopes of geocaching gaining acceptance with them we let them think they do.

 

I don't think its the park that demands permission for reference points. I've always gotten caught up by the reviewer wanting the permission. Then I spend 2-3 days trying to get a hold of someone that says, "Of course, why would we have a problem with that?"

 

The only offical statement I could get out them is nothing is allowed to remain in the park after you leave.

[+ecanderson]

While I am only a volunteer, it is not Groundspeak that created the restrictions in currently place for National Parks. The National Park Service has the right to create policies that restrict certain activities from occurring on lands under their management. Identifying other activities that are permitted is not relevant.

Understand, I'm not busting the chops of any of the reviewers for this lunacy if it's actually the NPS that is causing the problem.

 

As for the NPS, on the other hand: If the "activity" is nothing more than "walking in your park in an area available to the public in order to see something", regardless of the reason for doing so, they really need to get their heads screwed on straight about this. Someone needs to explain to them that they aren't restricting an activity, they're trying to restrict a motive.

Edited October 28, 2009 by ecanderson

[+eflyguy]

Read the PDF on NPS guidelines (link I posted above)..

 

Gives you their perspective. Right or wrong, I can appreciate and respect their opinion.

 

NOTE: It does not cover waypoints used as part of a multi..

..a

[+wimseyguy]

If I publish a newspaper article extolling the virtues of a specific site within one of your parks....

 

I believe you are confusing Freedom of Speech with the mandate of the National Parks Service to protect these lands and to put restrictions on certain recreational activities. Geocaching, in its essence, is a recreational activity, and not some form of publication.

 

Assuming that the Agenda portion of the Guidelines is not violated, I'm fairly certain you are free to write all about the beautiful spots you've visited in our Nations National Parks, and even encourage people to visit them if you like. The physical cache container (and any virtual waypoints relevant to the cache hunt) will still have to be outside the boundary of the Park if you don't have verifiable permission.

Right - so directing someone to a virtual waypoint within a park is unlawful, but directing someone to the same point in a newspaper article (with a vastly larger readership) isn't? Sorry - there's something very wrong about that.

 

By implication, no Waymarking will be allowed in any National Park without permission, either? I've not seen that restriction mentioned anywhere in the forums there.

 

I believe you are confusing what is lawful and within your rights with what complies with the guidelines for geocaching.com, a privately owned and managed website. If you wanted to publish your article at beautifulplaces.com and they had a similar agreement with the NPS or any other managed land, you would need to follow those guidelines for that website.

 

I wouldn't presume that the geocaching.com guidelines apply to Waymarking.com either. I would read the guidelines for listing a waymark over there carefully for that answer if I were you. And I wouldn't take what I read in the forums as gospel anywhere.

 

As Brian already pointed out, since some people are working with the NPS to get them to be more accepting of geocaching as an appropriate recreational activity on their managed lands, it does make good sense to play nice.

[+kunarion]

since some people are working with the NPS to get them to be more accepting of geocaching as an appropriate recreational activity on their managed lands, it does make good sense to play nice.

Yes, I agree. There are regulations for the regulations. It goes in layers. You must do X in order to allow X+1. In theory, if we always get permission for virtual waypoints, next we can get much less restricted permission to place containers.

 

If I direct someone to “the terrific view”, it’s unlikely that they'll tromp all over the landscape looking for it (you don’t even have to leave the trail for the view). On the other hand, if I say to “count the trees” or “read the sign”, it’s VERY likely that one day, they will be in the park office asking about it -- the new sign doesn’t have the year anymore, and two of the trees fell last month. At the very least, “permission” just might avoid confusion.

 

Anytime you make virtual stages, consider the likelihood of that the stage going away (how permanent is it?). Then think of what the searchers will do if they can’t find it (even if it is still in plain sight). If they end up off-trail in the Himalayan Stink Beetle Habitat, get caught, and say “we’re just Geocaching”, the Park Service may require permission for any waypoint, just so they can keep an eye on it. Wait. They do. Never mind.

 

Hard to believe there’s an overbearing, bureaucratic policy in a government organization.

Edited October 28, 2009 by kunarion

[+briansnat]

Anytime you make virtual stages, consider the likelihood of that the stage going away (how permanent is it?).

 

I have a cache that starts on NPS property using numbers on a Revolutonary War era cannon to point to a cache just outside the park property. A few years ago ago I started getting a bunch of DNFs and sure enough, the canon was gone.

 

I disabled the cache and 6 months later the canon was back. I have no idea why it was taken away temporarily but it is has been back in its spot for nearly 5 years now.

Edited October 29, 2009 by briansnat

[+wimseyguy]

I'm glad it was returned. I had a great time visiting that park and finding the cache with my nephews and father when we were in town for a family gathering last winter. We never would have enjoyed the views from there if the cache wasn't placed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As it stands the NPS thinks they have the authority and right to ban virtual waypoints. They probably don't but because we're trying to play nice with them in hopes of geocaching gaining acceptance with them we let them think they do.

And there lies the answer.

 

The NPS believes that they can ban virtual geocache locations, and in hopes of one day changing that policy Groundspeak is not going to challenge it.

 

Even if the NPS does not have the legal right they believe that they do, and it is smart business for Groundspeak to accept their stated belief and, in the long run, good for caching overall to be seen as cooperative.

 

Incorporating the NPS ban into our geocaching guidelines is probably the only path that will lead to their accepting us in the future.

 

The other path is a legal challenge. I see no difference in publishing maps with the coordinates of a trailhead and publishing the coordinates of a virtual cache... both lead visitors to a spot certain and no more, but I firstly doubt that we'll see anyone with the wherewithal mount such a challenge and secondly don't believe that winning such a battle and forcing ourselves where we are not wanted would be good for any of us.

 

Some things you just accept and move along.

[knowschad]

Read the PDF on NPS guidelines (link I posted above)..

 

Gives you their perspective. Right or wrong, I can appreciate and respect their opinion.

 

NOTE: It does not cover waypoints used as part of a multi..

..a

I'm curious... which National Park is this? I didn't think there were any near Atlanta.

[+eflyguy]

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area runs right through Atlanta, and is NPS land. There are many different parks included in this area, and most are (or would be) wonderful places for caching. I spend several hours a week with my dogs at the one closest to us..

http://www.nps.gov/PWR/customcf/apps/maps/...creation%20Area

..a

Edited October 29, 2009 by eflyguy

[knowschad]

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area runs right through Atlanta, and is NPS land. There are many different parks included in this area, and most are (or would be) wonderful places for caching. I spend several hours a week with my dogs at the one closest to us..

http://www.nps.gov/PWR/customcf/apps/maps/...creation%20Area

..a

Are you sure that National Recreation Areas are run under the same rules as National Parks? I'm not so sure the same rules apply.

[+the pooks]

I realise that it will achieve nothing to challenge landowners on their stance regarding caches (virtual or physical) on their land but it still remains a sad state of affairs to me. Cachers are on the whole nature loving people and interested in their surroundings. By allowing caches you have a great opportunity to communicate and reach out to people, with a small risk of some defaulters.

 

In the general populace there might be a fair percentage of defaulters (those who abuse the facility) but you have no means of controlling it, so you do not do anything (what can you do?). I would hazard a guess that the benefit/cost ratio of geocachers as a group is a lot better than the populace as a whole. Benefit being recreational/educational and cost being damage to the facility. Here you have a group of people on which you have an excellent platform to communicate your desires and intentions but by banning the activity you deprive yourself of the opportunity to communicate.

 

This makes me think (and by no means do I implicate that geocachers fall into that sector) - of some countries' approach to drug usage. By making it more legal at least you can talk to the people and try and influence them. By making it illegal you deprive yourself of the opportunity to communicate. There is an element of truth in that.

[+eflyguy]

Are you sure that National Recreation Areas are run under the same rules as National Parks? I'm not so sure the same rules apply.

 

Yes.

 

Active caches in the same area were removed and archived shortly before I discovered this sport, and finally deleted completely within the last year (I don't known when they vanished as I stopped watching them).

 

The caches had notes on them regarding the discussions with NPS, although my attempts to contact the cache owners for additional information went unanswered (although they were still active cachers)..

 

..a

[+wimseyguy]

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area runs right through Atlanta, and is NPS land. There are many different parks included in this area, and most are (or would be) wonderful places for caching. I spend several hours a week with my dogs at the one closest to us..

http://www.nps.gov/PWR/customcf/apps/maps/...creation%20Area

..a

Are you sure that National Recreation Areas are run under the same rules as National Parks? I'm not so sure the same rules apply.

 

The simple answer is sometimes they do. A quick google or NRA's shows that some are administered by the NPS, which appears to be the case with the OP's situation in GA. The same is true for the Cape Hatterras NRA in NC, and the Golden Gate NRA in CA.

Other NRA's appear to be part of National Forests, which in turn is part of the USDA. They tend to be a bit more cacher friendly. So it depends on which Federal Agency manages the NRA in question.

Edited October 29, 2009 by wimseyguy