Geocaching Responsibly

[+Sol seaker]

* Be advised *

 

Additional comments about the website geocacheresponsibly.info are being discussed on the Facebook page for Geocache - Responsibly.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041#!/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041

 

Be advised: This is what the CO wrote on facebook:

Bradley Henley

"The more I try to learn about the Sport of Geocaching and the Company (Groundspeak) the more I seem to disagree with the values it relays. Seems that the game has less to do with obeying the Laws and more with just how far the game can push the boundaries of the laws before someone of authority catches on.""

 

I think you need to learn a whole lot more about the game and the company before you go broadcasting your views to the world.

You can do a lot of damage, and also cause yourself a whole lot of embarrassment when you learn more.

 

Have you considered this might really not be the game for you?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Sol seaker

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Thanks for being informative. Are you adding to your learning experience by paying attention to the numerous helpful posts and questions here? And are you updating your site based on this feedback?

 

Check to website.

 

I redesigned it yesterday.

 

I removed me ranting at the beginning and posted links to every statement.

 

I also posted a statement at the top of Mission about this being my view.

 

First, I think the redesign is a considerable improvement but I wanted to make a couple of comments. In terms of your "Mission Statements" it wasn't really clear that this was only your view. Since it is your view, that can only be based on your experience. I'm not talking about the number of finds you have, but rather the breath of your experience. From a quick perusal of your Statistics tab it indicates that most of your finds are in Texas, mostly 20 miles or less from home with Diff/Terr ratings of 2 or less. Thus, your view of problems that you're attempting to address based on your perception of geocaching from a fairly local set of data. Not that some of these problems don't exist outside of Texas, but one thing I've discovered from geocaching in almost half of the US states and 12 countries is that geocaching communities can be extremely diverse. Essentially, there are some portions of the site that seem to be suggesting global solutions for what may be a local problem. To be fair, this isn't just you. I see suggestions on "how to play the game" all the time from people that live in extremely cache rich areas that just don't apply to those that live in cache sparse environments. I'm not sure how to best to change your site to address the diversity in geocaching environments but you should at least recognize that suggestions such as the following are not globally relevant.

 

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

In many parts of the world, a month or more between attempts to find a cache, even one that is fairly accessible, is pretty common. I've done a few local caches that typically only get attempted about once a year.

 

One additional comment: In response to your statement:

 

 

I want everyone to know and have access to the State, Federal, and Corps of engineer’s laws and views of Geocaching.

 

While creating a clearing house for State/Federal access policies and regulations might seem to be a good idea, in practice a potential cache owner really has to consider local policies and works with only one or two reviewers. I've found that many reviewers will include a comprehensive list of policies for the region that they cover and if all reviewers that there really isn't a need for a one-stop site for accessing State, Federal policies and regulations.

[Clan Riffster]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

[+JBnW]

* Be advised *

 

Additional comments about the website geocacheresponsibly.info are being discussed on the Facebook page for Geocache - Responsibly.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041#!/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041

 

**BE Advised**

 

I do not participate in facebook. I will not participate in facebook. Not on train. Not in the rain.

Would you, could you with a goat? Could you, would you in a boat?

[+bradleyhenley]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

 

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

[+StarBrand]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

 

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

This re-write helps how? on rural infrequently found caches?? My 8 finds in 4 years cache is just a 2.5 terrain and 1.5 difficulty. Its just way out in the sticks - not difficult. I have logged DNF on caches rated 1 and 1.5 and 2 and then they were found by the next visitor. In some cases as much as a year later. Again - DNF does not equate to missing - it means Did Not Find.

 

Your steps are terribly misleading. Please, I implore you to listen to some advice here for rural areas.

[knowschad]

Just nits, but on the reworked front page:

 

"I will try to update the sight with your states information."

should read:

"I will try to update the site with your state's information."

 

To Contact me Please clink the "Contact Us" Link in the top right corner.

Should be

To Contact me please clink the "Contact Us" link in the top right corner.

 

the sport of Geocaching.

This is just my personal thing, but I believe you cover more bases if, instead of calling Geocaching a "sport", you call it an "activity".

 

At least one of your linked references has incorrect information:

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, do not permit the placement of geocaches on any park lands under their respective administration.

 

No longer true. National Park Service leaves it up to the discretion of the Superintendant of each park. By linking to that article, you are perpetuating bad information. (also, what are her credentials and/or citations to the supposedly factual information she is providing?)

 

Minor point: the one and only person posting to the forums ("Thanks"), Greencacher, shows no finds, no hides on their profile page. Not impossible, but unlikely.

[+Ninja R]

My understanding is that the rewrite seeks to emphasize responsible geocaching in national parks. Additional guidelines are those by which he personally abides.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

 

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

 

Horrible, horrible, horrible. A DNF is not a good reason to post an NA log, even if the owner never responds to it. If you (or anyone else, I don't really mean to pick on you) post a Needs maintenance log on one of my finds because you couldn't find it, I'm going to ignore you, too.

 

I've probably posted more than my share of NA logs, I'm not shy about it at all. But with very rare exceptions, I save them for caches that I've actually found. If I find a cache, and it's in terrible shape, and the owner has not responded to several NM logs over a period of several months, THEN I'll post an NA. But if I can't find it, I just post the DNF.

 

If you did not find it, you can't possibly know that it needs to be archived. All you know is that you didn't find it.

[+JBnW]

Your steps are terribly misleading. Please, I implore you to listen to some advice here for rural areas.

 

From the webpage:

"These missions are my personal guidelines offered for view not debate." (Accessed March 9, 2011: 1100)

 

About all I need to know...

[+Ike 13]

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

[+bradleyhenley]

Just nits, but on the reworked front page:

 

"I will try to update the sight with your states information."

should read:

"I will try to update the site with your state's information."

 

To Contact me Please clink the "Contact Us" Link in the top right corner.

Should be

To Contact me please clink the "Contact Us" link in the top right corner.

 

the sport of Geocaching.

This is just my personal thing, but I believe you cover more bases if, instead of calling Geocaching a "sport", you call it an "activity".

 

At least one of your linked references has incorrect information:

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, do not permit the placement of geocaches on any park lands under their respective administration.

 

No longer true. National Park Service leaves it up to the discretion of the Superintendant of each park. By linking to that article, you are perpetuating bad information. (also, what are her credentials and/or citations to the supposedly factual information she is providing?)

 

Minor point: the one and only person posting to the forums ("Thanks"), Greencacher, shows no finds, no hides on their profile page. Not impossible, but unlikely.

 

I have updated the site per your suggestions. Please allow 5-10 minutes for the site to update.

 

Random Articles are just that. Random articles from the web that I found while searching.

 

Minor point: it could also be a secondary or rouge account.

[+bradleyhenley]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

 

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

This re-write helps how? on rural infrequently found caches?? My 8 finds in 4 years cache is just a 2.5 terrain and 1.5 difficulty. Its just way out in the sticks - not difficult. I have logged DNF on caches rated 1 and 1.5 and 2 and then they were found by the next visitor. In some cases as much as a year later. Again - DNF does not equate to missing - it means Did Not Find.

 

Your steps are terribly misleading. Please, I implore you to listen to some advice here for rural areas.

 

Since this one mission view seems to bother everyone, I have decided to delete the mission view.

 

Everyone seems to be hung up on my mission views not the issues with the ignored laws (The entire reason for the website).

[+StarBrand]

.....

Everyone seems to be hung up on my mission views not the issues with the ignored laws (The entire reason for the website).

Just a thought, maybe that statement is true for the simple reason that the "laws" are not being ignored nearly as much as you believe them to be??

[knowschad]

Minor point: it could also be a secondary or rouge account.

Those rouge accounts make me see red.

[+bradleyhenley]

.....

Everyone seems to be hung up on my mission views not the issues with the ignored laws (The entire reason for the website).

Just a thought, maybe that statement is true for the simple reason that the "laws" are not being ignored nearly as much as you believe them to be??

 

The issue or issues I pursuit are based on my observations. And on the outside chance that I am not the only one seeing the same issue again and again then my website could inform fellow geocachers.

In my geocaching area I have seen the disregard for the laws and noted the cache, cache owner, and reviewer.

On news articles and news websites I have seen multiple bomb scares (Like Disney) and entire geocache runs being archived (E.T. Highway)

 

I am open to suggestions and I truly mean no harm to the game. I am only being proactive attempting to head off a fairly broad issue that I have personally seen.

If I had only seen a couple slights then I probably would not have spent this much time and money on a website.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

.....

Everyone seems to be hung up on my mission views not the issues with the ignored laws (The entire reason for the website).

Just a thought, maybe that statement is true for the simple reason that the "laws" are not being ignored nearly as much as you believe them to be??

 

The issue or issues I pursuit are based on my observations. And on the outside chance that I am not the only one seeing the same issue again and again then my website could inform fellow geocachers.

In my geocaching area I have seen the disregard for the laws and noted the cache, cache owner, and reviewer.

On news articles and news websites I have seen multiple bomb scares (Like Disney) and entire geocache runs being archived (E.T. Highway)

 

 

Once again, you're promoting a web site that "could inform fellow geocachers" on a global level based on observations in your geocaching area. The issues that you are observing may, in fact, be a regional problem which might be better addressed through the dissemination of information in the local reviewers profile.

[+bradleyhenley]

@ NYPaddleCacher I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

 

Prime Reviewer

 

Member Since: Wednesday, 28 January 2004

Last Visit: Wednesday, 09 March 2011

Status: Premium Member, Reviewer

E-Mail Address: Send Message

Home Page: Visit Homepage

Forum Title: Faith In Chaos

See the Forum Posts for This User

 

Shining Happy People

 

 

 

 

 

Profile Information:

Reviewing Your Cache Submission

Why are the people above shining and happy? Their cache was approved, because they read and followed the Cache Placement Guidelines before they placed their cache. Thus, they received the golden orb of approval happiness.

The people above would never place a cache that's closer then 1/10 of a mile to another cache. If they're placing a multi-cache, they would check that each stage also follows this rule. Everyone deserves a little space.

 

The shining happy people would never place a cache within 150 feet of a railroad track, because they know that area belongs to the railroad company, and they get grumpy if things are placed in their right-of-way.

 

The people above know that they would never receive the golden orb if they submitted a physical cache that didn't have a log book. Trying to submit a "code-word" cache is the path to darkness, and will not be allowed.

 

The shining happy people know that when they submit a multi-cache, or any cache where the actual location is not the one posted, they should create a Waypoint entries to indicate where the actual locations are, including all the stages of a multi-cache. That way, they know they're following the golden path to quick approval.

 

While everyone has favorite restaurants and places they like to shop, the shining happy people know not to promote businesses on their cache pages. Anything beyond simply mentioning that the cache is near the business will cause the golden orb to disappear.

 

The shining happy people know that virtual caches are no longer being published on geocaching.com. If you've found something really special, and can't make it part of a physical cache, see if there's a place for it over on Waymarking.com.

 

The shining happy people know that sometimes, bad things happen to good caches. But they also know that disabling a cache is meant to be a temporary measure. If you can't get your cache repaired in a timely manner, you should archive it, so that it will stop showing up in search lists. It's also not fair when your disabled cache prevents others from placing a cache in the same area. Remember, geocaching is about finding caches, and they can't be found if they're not there.

 

If a cache has been disabled for too long, and a reviewer archives it, the shining happy people know not to get upset about it. When your cache has been repaired, it can always be un-archived (as long as it still follows the current guidelines).

 

Contacting the Reviewer

If you need to contact me via EMAIL concerning one of your caches, include the WAYPOINT ID. Let me repeat that. Include the WAYPOINT ID. Cache names are not unique, and I handle hundreds of caches a week, so the odds that I'll know what cache you're referring to, without the waypoint ID, is pretty much zero. If you email me without this information, you will only get back a message asking for the waypoint ID, which is wasting both your time and mine.

This is why I prefer to handle pre-publication cache issues with Reviewer Notes, since the system will automatically add the cache info, and I'll automatically know what cache it's about. However, after a cache has been published, do not use Reviewer Notes, because I remove the cache from my watchlist after it's published, and I'll never receive it.

 

Missing and Disabled Caches

If your cache seems to be missing or damaged, another cacher may post a "Needs Archived" note. I automatically receive a copy of these messages. Unless there is a problem that needs to be resolved immediately (a trespassing issue, for example) I will give the owner several days to address the problem. After that time period has passed, I will assess the situation. If the recent logs seem to indicate an actual problem, I may disable the cache. Once that has been done, the owner has 30 days to deal with the problem (or at a minimum, indicate via a log that he or she is aware of the problem, and will attempt to address it). If there is no response after the 30 days has passed, the cache may be archived.

 

Caches Disabled for an Extended Period

The "Disable Cache" function is intended to be used for a short time. That means a few weeks, not a few months. A disabled cache will continually show up in search lists, and while there's no cache to be found, it prevents someone from placing a new cache in the area that others can find. If your cache has been disabled for more than 4 months, a warning note will be posted to the cache. If after approximately 30 days after the warning has been posted, there is no response from the owner, the cache may be archived. Please note that this is the cache owner's responsibility. Do NOT put out a new cache, if you are not actually the cache owner.

 

Mass Submissions of Caches

There is a right way and a wrong way to submit a large group of caches. The wrong way is to create a large number of cache, then activate them all at once, with no advace warning to the Reviewer. Doing so pretty much guarantees that your submissions will be put on hold, and not processed until the existing caches in the queue have been reviewed. They will be held because it is not fair to everyone else to have the review of their caches delayed because of the actions of one person. The right way is to first inform your reviewer of your intentions. Then submit your caches for review as you create them. Include a Review Note on each cache, asking for it to be reviewed and held until either a chosen date, or until you contact the reviewer. By doing so, you will not end up surprised at the last minute to find out that half your caches are unpublishable (yes, this has happened).

 

Texas State Parks

Yes, it's true - to place a cache in a Texas State Park, State Forest, or a State Nature Area, it needs to conform to certain guidelines, and you must submit a permit for the cache placement. Most of the guidelines are those that, as a good geocacher, you're already following. You can download a copy of the guidelines and permit (in PDF format). Permits are good for 1 year, but they are renewable. If there is not a permit on file for your cache, or its permit has expired, it is subject to removal.

 

A Little About Me

I'm one of the cache reviewers for geocaching.com. My find count has been in quadruple digits for a while, as I've been geocaching since just a few months after its creation.

This profile is strictly for reviewing and managing caches. My finds and hidden caches are, of course, under my civilian account.

[+niraD]

I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

That's funny. I see it.

[+bradleyhenley]

I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

That's funny. I see it.

 

I see incomplete information and poor humor.

[+MoonCatKDT & Peanut]

I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

That's funny. I see it.

 

I see incomplete information and poor humor.

 

I see a forum topic that has become quite entertaining to watch unfold.

[knowschad]

I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

That's funny. I see it.

I see incomplete information and poor humor.

I think I'm seeing a total disconnect. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but you do know what "dissemination" means, don't you? It sounds as though you may not. Your website disseminates information. Now, if he had said, "dissemination of misinformation"... that is something that you might not agree with. But that isn't what he said.

[+bradleyhenley]

I have grown tired of this thread and the continued scrutiny by so many wonderful geocachers.

I have listened to all the comments about MY website and what YOU think about it.

I have redesigned the pages multiple times removing my personal statements from the beginning.

I have entertained your petty issues complaining about my usage of the word “sport” instead of “activity” and have went as far as changing the reference on my website.

I have even posted a statement stating:

“These missions are my personal guidelines offered for view not debate.

The main purpose of this website has been the blatant disregard for State and Federal Laws associated with the activity of geocaching.”

I have even gone as far as deleting part of my personal view/guideline in the hopes that my message would get thru.

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

[+WRASTRO]

Everything that I have seen in seven plus years as an active participant in this activity/game is that state and federal (and local) laws are followed to the extent they are known (and they are well known and constantly changing). GS and the reviewers do an amazing job of staying on top of the multitude of ever changing laws, rules and regulations of the bazillion entities (land managers) that affect our activity/game.

 

Your message is not ignored. It is well understood and embraced by the geocaching community.

[Mushtang]

[blah blah blah - I give and give and this is the thanks I get]

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY" OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY".

So in your eyes, if someone doesn't like your website or the message it sends, they obviously don't want to follow state and federal laws governing geocaching??

[Pup Patrol]

I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

That's funny. I see it.

 

I see incomplete information and poor humor.

 

Interesting. I see a Reviewer attempting to advise players of the Guidelines, in a non-threatening, humourous way.

[knowschad]

I have entertained your petty issues complaining about my usage of the word "sport" instead of "activity" and have went as far as changing the reference on my website.

That bit came from me, was clearly stated to be my own personal opinion, and was intended only to be helpful. Thank you, knowschad.

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

I guess that goes both ways. From the beginning, we have tried to make it clear that it isn't just the message, but how you try to get it across. We were only trying to help. Obviously, from the reactions here, many were not impressed by what you had, and if they're not impressed, your message will be lost.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY" OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY".

That is a pretty big leap of logic, my friend.

[+StarBrand]

....

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

If you really want to be helpful....

 

Give VERY specific examples of the state/federal laws you keep referring to.

Give VERY specific examples of the ways in which you think they are being ignored by cachers/reviewers.

 

Give VERY specific suggestions for improvement.

 

Drop all the vitriol.

[+BCandMsKitty]

ibtl

[+Ike 13]

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

I guess that goes both ways. From the beginning, we have tried to make it clear that it isn't just the message, but how you try to get it across. We were only trying to help. Obviously, from the reactions here, many were not impressed by what you had, and if they're not impressed, your message will be lost.

 

Yep I said that back in post 29

I think trying to educate the locals on being responsible is great. But as a teacher I know the way you come at someone you're trying to educate is very important. Making someone feel dumb or irresponsible is not going to get great results. You may have an uphill battle since you're the new guy with only 167 finds. You can easily earn respect (even with low numbers) and then start educating the locals at events.

 

Again Bradley I agree with the idea behind the message, I just don't know that your website is the best way to get that message out. With the TXGA and Prime Reviewers Profile a lot of that information is already out there in more visible places. I commend you on trying to improve it, but it also seems you are missing some of the well meaning advice, and that is where a majority of the frustration in this thread is coming from.

[+Ecylram]

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY" OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE "SPORT/ACTIVITY".

Balderdash!

 

The underlying premise is flawed from the start - that geocachers are inherently more law breaking than the rest of society. That just isn't true. There are bad actors in all areas of outdoor activities.

• Hikers go off trail, litter, don't pack out or bury their waste.
• Climbers use implements where they are banned.
• Skiiers go out of bounds.
• Snowmobilers trespass.
• Campers illegally cut trees, start fires, and leave refuse.
• Picnickers bring alcohol into banned areas.
• ATVer's and 4WD enthusiasts will damage sensitive areas.
• All of the above have bad actors who drive irresponsibly and disregard laws and regulations.
• etc., etc., etc.

We like to sit here and navel gaze about our sport. We moan and complain about the slights and errors we see in others. But, at the end of the day, we participate in a game/sport/hobby/obsession/activity where the message is to cache responsibly and, for the most part, we do. Demographically speaking, our participants tend to be the most law abiding members of society - middle-aged & older and those with families.

 

If you take an objective look at the various outdoor activities and measure their relative total impacts on the environment and society. You'll find that the impact of geocaching is minimal in comparison to that of other activities. While I applaud your motives, getting cachers to follow the laws and cache responsibly, I don't see your website as having much affect. The rule-breakers are not going to visit your website, read your list of rules and suddenly change their behavior.

 

Ironically, this board with it's obsessive navel gazing, does more to promote responsible geocaching than any other website out there. Here, problems are brought up (real or imagined) and are debated by hotheads enthusiasts of the activity. Thousands of people view these boards every day and are influenced about how they go about geocaching. If the geocaching community really didn't care about laws, guidelines, and impacts then this board would be a ghost town.

 

Geocaching, as with all activities, will have it's bad actors and all activities have their impacts...but, overall, if we pull our heads out of our navels and look around, we'll see that we really aren't society's (or the environment's) problem child. And when there are problems, we'll be here cussing and discussing them - as we should.

[Mushtang]

Geocaching, as with all activities, will have it's bad actors and all activities have their impacts...

Are you talking about Wil Wheaton? I liked him in Star Trek and Stand By Me.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

 

Oh, thank you, bradleyhenley! Thank you for being the One True Prophet who will single-handedly save the Sport/Activity of geocaching! How have we survived these ten long years without you? How can anyone doubt the wisdom of the anointed bradleyhenley? Hear, ye, geocachers: hearken to the words of bradleyhenley, and obey!

 

</sarcasm>

 

edited to add:

 

IBTL!

Edited March 10, 2011 by GeoGeeBee

[Pup Patrol]

 

ibtl

[BiIIyBobNosePicker]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Are you honestly advocating this?

I've got a cache that has only been found 5 times in the last three years.

If BillyBobNosePicker heads out to hunt for it, and can't find it, I agree he should log a DNF.

What I don't get is why you think that my cache would need maintenance after sitting undisturbed for a couple weeks.

If I am better at hiding than Billy is at finding, why does that mean my cache needs maintenance?

Are you suggesting that I, as the cache owner, must log all my regular checks on this cache?

Yes, I am responsible for making occasional visits to the cache, which I do.

I am also responsible for checking on my cache if a problem is reported.

But a DNF is not a problem, according to the guidelines.

I also don't get why extending that to a month would suddenly qualify my cache as needing to be archived.

Can you explain your logic?

 

This issue has already been addressed by Ninja R.

 

My Rewrite:

 

Steps #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

- Read past logs, Note if anyone has posted difficult find, or if the owner stated difficult find on the cache page.

- You may want to contact the owner directly thru the Geocaching.com website.

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs (owner response), log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs (owner response), log a needs archived.

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Bring that Texas only has one reviewer and there are a multitude of geocaches being published, disabled, and archived daily. Follow - up can take up to and including several months as I have experienced.

This re-write helps how? on rural infrequently found caches?? My 8 finds in 4 years cache is just a 2.5 terrain and 1.5 difficulty. Its just way out in the sticks - not difficult. I have logged DNF on caches rated 1 and 1.5 and 2 and then they were found by the next visitor. In some cases as much as a year later. Again - DNF does not equate to missing - it means Did Not Find.

 

Your steps are terribly misleading. Please, I implore you to listen to some advice here for rural areas.

 

It wouldn't need maintenence anyhow unless I found it and my fingers were greasy.

[+Chrysalides]

Is it just me, or does saying "IBTL" seem to be all the rage in the forums these days?

 

Well, I guess I just did it myself *sigh*

 

I was going to add some on topic comments but re-reading them I don't find them constructive and I think the OP and the rest of the readers of this thread can do without them.

[jholly]

@ NYPaddleCacher I do not see this "dissemination of information" you speack of.

 

Prime Reviewer

 

Member Since: Wednesday, 28 January 2004

Last Visit: Wednesday, 09 March 2011

Status: Premium Member, Reviewer

E-Mail Address: Send Message

Home Page: Visit Homepage

Forum Title: Faith In Chaos

See the Forum Posts for This User

<snip>

 

More than anything, I really think this is the reason for the site. Our buddy here has a beef with prime reviewer.

[+niraD]

While I applaud your motives, getting cachers to follow the laws and cache responsibly, I don't see your website as having much affect. The rule-breakers are not going to visit your website, read your list of rules and suddenly change their behavior.

+1

 

I think the reviewer's profile page quoted by the OP is going to get more visits than the OP's GR site from people who need to learn about geocaching within the law. My guess is that the links included in the reviewer's profile page are the ones he has found most necessary. But if there are other laws/regulations/policies that are being ignored, then the OP would have more impact by suggesting links for the reviewer to include in his profile, than by creating a site that is likely to be ignored once this thread fades away.

[Pup Patrol]

More than anything, I really think this is the reason for the site. Our buddy here has a beef with prime reviewer.

 

No need for a hammer to hit the nail on the head.

 

Maybe narcissa was onto something.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=267010&hl=texas%20reviewer&st=0

Edited March 10, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[GOF and Bacall]

I suspect you're right. I get the impression that caches he thinks should be archived aren't and he is blaming the reviewer. But that is just the impression I get. Who really knows what goes on in someone else's mind.

[+Afterburned]

IBTL

 

Much as I hate to continue the bashing of the poor website owner (who, by the way, did not even start this thread!)...

From the website in question...

Geocache - Responsibly is a movement started with just one individual and proceeding world wide. You learn about the existence of State and Federal laws governing geocaching then you relay the information to fellow geocachers thus the movement grows. Education is a powerful tool, Inform yourself.

 

How about Country or County laws? We do not have "State and Federal laws"! So much for world wide.

[knowschad]

IBTL

 

Much as I hate to continue the bashing of the poor website owner (who, by the way, did not even start this thread!)...

From the website in question...

Geocache - Responsibly is a movement started with just one individual and proceeding world wide. You learn about the existence of State and Federal laws governing geocaching then you relay the information to fellow geocachers thus the movement grows. Education is a powerful tool, Inform yourself.

 

How about Country or County laws? We do not have "State and Federal laws"! So much for world wide.

 

Actually, the website owner did start the thread... but in another thread. So I started this one to move it here.

I really don't see bashing in this thread... or very little of it, anyway. I do see some strong opinions, and a lot of suggestions.

 

We even have city-level geocaching regulations in some Minnesota cities. And some of our parks are run by a 3rd party company, who has their own set of rules. It is a very complex subject, indeed!

[+NeecesandNephews]

I don't see it as bashing! More like "critiquing". Seriously, I hope the website owner is not taking it all wrong. I mean, everyone is really trying to help him with the site. I would appreciate it.

[jd-mitchell]

It may just be me, but it almost seems like the GR message is aimed to change the lawbreaking of the the few & remind the many to keep up the good stuff they're doing. I could be wrong, though.

[+narcissa]

Minor point: it could also be a secondary or rouge account.

Those rouge accounts make me see red.

 

+1

[+narcissa]

More than anything, I really think this is the reason for the site. Our buddy here has a beef with prime reviewer.

 

No need for a hammer to hit the nail on the head.

 

Maybe narcissa was onto something.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=267010&hl=texas%20reviewer&st=0

 

These two are the first I have noticed who have tried to impose their own rule structure in order to fix issues that seem to originate with the Texas reviewer, but if you did a little, Texas cachers complaining about lag in reviewer attention pop up on a pretty regular basis.

[+roziecakes]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Yikes!!

 

Waaaaayyy too simplistic.

 

I have a cache with exactly 8 finds in a tad over 4 years. By your plan, a single DNF would get it archived as it goes 8 to 9 months often between finds. Rural caches just are not sought after as frequently.

 

DNF doesn't mean its missing. DNF does not mean it need maintenance. DNF means you didn't find the cache. If I had a dime for every DNF that declared one of my caches to be "missing for sure" only to have me race over and find it in place, I would have enough to take my wife to dinner.

I have to agree that this a much to simplistic outlook on life. I have a couple that are infrequently logged. A log every month would be a rare couple months. An occasional DNF does not run up the red flags or start ringing the Needs Maintenance alarms. It means that someone simply did not find the camo'ed cache. And if someone followed your agenda I probably would start deleting logs and send them an email to quit being a cache cop and stick with the LPC and GRC hides that they can manage.

 

+1 coming from a cache owner who places caches in some really rural places, one of which needs to be hiked to for half of the year since the road gets closed to vehicle traffic from late fall to early summer. I believe it has three finds, and that's okay. It's in a literally far out place.

[+roziecakes]

I have grown tired of this thread and the continued scrutiny by so many wonderful geocachers.

I have listened to all the comments about MY website and what YOU think about it.

I have redesigned the pages multiple times removing my personal statements from the beginning.

I have entertained your petty issues complaining about my usage of the word “sport” instead of “activity” and have went as far as changing the reference on my website.

I have even posted a statement stating:

“These missions are my personal guidelines offered for view not debate.

The main purpose of this website has been the blatant disregard for State and Federal Laws associated with the activity of geocaching.”

I have even gone as far as deleting part of my personal view/guideline in the hopes that my message would get thru.

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

 

I would say that just because folks don't agree with your website doesn't mean they don't want to follow state or federal laws. To me it seems that your website isn't focused on *that* concept, but on telling others how to play the game.

 

This is why I suggested that you make a blog instead because then it will be clear that you're just sharing an opinion rather than telling others what to do.

 

As for the state / federal laws, I think that there are already scores of places to find those things on the web. I am sorry that you feel like the constructive criticism of folks is negative. As a web developer by trade, I can tell you that most things on the web are scrutinized and criticized... that's how feedback works. If it were me, I'd prefer to know what people honestly thought.

 

Don't be discouraged, maybe just try a different approach.

[+WRASTRO]

I have grown tired of this thread and the continued scrutiny by so many wonderful geocachers.

I have listened to all the comments about MY website and what YOU think about it.

I have redesigned the pages multiple times removing my personal statements from the beginning.

I have entertained your petty issues complaining about my usage of the word “sport” instead of “activity” and have went as far as changing the reference on my website.

I have even posted a statement stating:

“These missions are my personal guidelines offered for view not debate.

The main purpose of this website has been the blatant disregard for State and Federal Laws associated with the activity of geocaching.”

I have even gone as far as deleting part of my personal view/guideline in the hopes that my message would get thru.

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

Dude don't give up so easy, after all you only have 46 forum (at the time of this) posts, you need at least 100 before you are qualified to foist your ethics on others.

What a crock. It is embarassing to me that a cacher of six years or so would post something so wrong and so intentionally inflammatory. Please do not attempt to foist your seriously twisted perception of these forums on the participants of this forum.

 

If you have anything to back up your claim please share it.

[+WRASTRO]

I have grown tired of this thread and the continued scrutiny by so many wonderful geocachers.

I have listened to all the comments about MY website and what YOU think about it.

I have redesigned the pages multiple times removing my personal statements from the beginning.

I have entertained your petty issues complaining about my usage of the word “sport” instead of “activity” and have went as far as changing the reference on my website.

I have even posted a statement stating:

“These missions are my personal guidelines offered for view not debate.

The main purpose of this website has been the blatant disregard for State and Federal Laws associated with the activity of geocaching.”

I have even gone as far as deleting part of my personal view/guideline in the hopes that my message would get thru.

 

And still my message falls on blind eyes and my voice falls on deaf ears.

 

So in conclusion my final statement on this thread is:

IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY” OF GEOCACHING THEN YOU MY FELLOW GEOCACHER PUBLIC WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF THE “SPORT/ACTIVITY”.

Dude don't give up so easy, after all you only have 46 forum (at the time of this) posts, you need at least 100 before you are qualified to foist your ethics on others.

What a crock. It is embarassing to me that a cacher of six years or so would post something so wrong and so intentionally inflammatory. Please do not attempt to foist your seriously twisted perception of these forums on the participants of this forum.

 

If you have anything to back up your claim please share it. t

Owie, I need to call the wahhmbulance! Offended much? First of all go back and reread the entire thread and then read the last thing the guy posted about his webpage and this thread! And then go read all the thousands of other posts in the Groundspeak forums where someone gets smacked down on a regular basis for some idea on how to make geocaching better! There is a guy in this forum that posted a list of cities he won't cache in because of uncreative hides every city has their share. There's forum chats that blast people for liking power trails, light posts, micros, and everything else if someone doesn't like something there's no shortage of complaints. there are forums that go on and on about "my caches are better than yours." do you complain then? Some twisted things have been said about the guy's website and you call me twisted and intentionally inflammatory! Geeze! BTW I only have 91 posts!

Nope, not offended. Just calling a post a crock when I see it. Are these forums always fair and nice? Nope. But they are better than most as far as I can tell. Lots of participants have many, many opinions and, for the most part, they are able to express them here and have them discussed. My opinion of your post being a "crock" is due to the fact that cachers who post rational and reasonable questions and opinions here receive rational and reasonable answers. Those who choose to post for the sake of dumping poo on the forums as a whole will very likely meet a bit of resistance.

 

Please share your specific examples beyond the generic and standard "hot" topics you tossed out.

 

I don't see anyone telling bradleyhenley he/she can't have a website regarding geocaching. The comments and suggestions have been pretty uniformly on the side of making sure it is accurate, informative and clearly labeled as one person's opinions, not those of the geocaching community in general.

 

46 posts or 20,000 posts. Doesn't make any difference to me. Post stuff that makes sense or post nonsense.