Jump to content

Geocache Archive Requests


Recommended Posts

From John Neale - President of NNJC

Placing a geocache is a privilege not a right.

 

NNJC has been contacted and partnering with many Land Managers to assist with Geocaching programs. Our goals are to work with these land manager to install quality educations geocaches so these managers can utilize their parks for interpretative and educational programs. This benefit many parks goals to bring public awareness into their parks and introduce geocaching. In the last year NNJC has worked with Morris County Park, Duke Farm Foundation, Franklin township and Kittatinny Valley State Park, just to name a few to assist and develop successful programs for many to enjoy. unfortunately, there are times when an existing cache that had been placed in their park must be removed to make room for the Park Managers new program. We must understand all Park Managers have full responsibility and final word on what is placed inside their park.

 

 

This is a tough situation, by NNJC's partnering with the parks, we have assisted these park managers and reached out to our NJ community on the park managers behalf to ask the CO's to archive their caches. We are fortunate that most of our geocaching community understand that NNJC is making the request on behalf of the park manager. This is to avoid the Park Manager having to contact geocaching HQ to make the official request.

 

The Geocaching policy states:

 

Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

1.If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect the wishes of the land owner or manager.

 

In the case of public property, permission can often be obtained from the agency or association that manages the land. Worldwide, there are many such agencies and organizations that regulate geocaching on their managed land. As the cache owner you are responsible for determining who to contact to obtain permission.

 

Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on particular public property, ensure that you have followed any and all requirements established by the land owner or land management agency before placing the cache. There may be locations in which cache hides are inappropriate, even though not prohibited by local laws.

 

If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

 

It is unfortunate that some CO's simply do not understand that placing a geocache is a privilege not a right.

 

Months ago NNJC was in discussion with Kittatinny Valley State Park (KVSP) about installing a interpretative and educational program along their main trail, their park is saturated with caches and they felt it was time to take back some controls of the park, also decided it was be an added benefit for KVSP's geocaching program to launch their new educational trail with NNJC's CTTS event. KVSP has advertised this event with the local media to promote their park. NNJC has assisted with this program, and contacted CO's about this new rail and ask on behalf of KVSP to archive their caches. Most have achieved, but one CO refused to abide by the request, it then took more official KVSP park manager's requests to finally have these caches archived by the CO. KVSP had contacted geocaching HQ and they were in the process of archiving the requested caches. unfortunately this individual has now decided to complain and rally geocachers against KVSP and NNJC.

 

NNJC goals have been to promote geocaching for the good of everyone, we are working with many park managers from State, County and Townships all to help promote geocaching programs. With the growth of geocaching and park cache saturation, many parks want to take back control and current caches may have to be removed. Morris County and NJ State are currently working on restrictive and permitting geocaching policies. So please keep in mind when placing a cache or being contacted by a land manager placing a geocache is a privilege not a right, get approval first and if a manager want a cache removed for whatever reason, they have rights. Old Navy

 

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

Link to comment

Winning a battle sometimes results in losing a war.

Of all the posts in this thread, I'd rate this as the most relevant. Yes, it appears that the President is being a bully. Yes, it is foul. I doubt anyone will argue with you on this. But, as gpsfun so wisely pointed out, things can get much, much worse. If you try going over the land manager's head, there could be serious repercussions for future hides. My advice? First, sit down with the land manager and express your views. Tell them how you feel. If, after this conversation, they still want your caches archived, then suck it up and do the needful.

Link to comment

I'll be passing through that area on Saturday (I'm currently at an airport hotel in Germany and will be taking an early morning flight to Newark where I'll pick up my car and drive home) and won't stop to find any caches in that park. I suppose that the land manager can do whatever they want in that park but that doesn't mean the we, as geocachers have to find any of the caches they're placing. The fact that there is also an affiliation with a local club but it might not hurt to lobby to boycott the cache series, if only to make a point.

Link to comment

So, making sure the NNJC membership was aware of both sides of the issue, I posted this thread twice (first time it disappeared, go figure). I just went to see of any activity and again it was deleted. As was my membership. Whomever runs their page decided I was a menace and revoked my membership on their site.

Link to comment

As one of the reviewers of this area, I was waiting for more information before I acted on the Needs Archive log. I see the cache owner archived the listings already, making the situation on my a little bit easier.

 

From my standpoint: Land managers request trumps all. I would have archived the listings but would have required a direct e-mail with a parks/municipality return email address. Anyone can create a caching account and name it whatever, say they work for whomever.

 

I would make this general suggestion to Ranger Lynn or any other official who plays the game AND wants to act the part of a park official. Create an official park account that is not a player account. Segregate the two accounts to remove the look of impropriety or anything like that. One official e-mail to the reviewers and we know forever that things from this account are park sanctioned.

 

As for the general practice of "I have permission and want that spot from someone who doesn't", it sets a bad precedence and creates cacher to cacher disharmony. I don't know the logistics of this geotrail but in general, I feel you gain more by working with the community and/or individuals than bulldozing over them.

Link to comment

Winning a battle sometimes results in losing a war.

Of all the posts in this thread, I'd rate this as the most relevant. Yes, it appears that the President is being a bully. Yes, it is foul. I doubt anyone will argue with you on this. But, as gpsfun so wisely pointed out, things can get much, much worse. If you try going over the land manager's head, there could be serious repercussions for future hides. My advice? First, sit down with the land manager and express your views. Tell them how you feel. If, after this conversation, they still want your caches archived, then suck it up and do the needful.

 

You and gpsfun are both 100% correct. However, posting this in the discussion forums has at least raised the awareness of the "cache bullying" that's going on with this organization. I believe that in and of itself is a win.

 

I'll be passing through that area on Saturday (I'm currently at an airport hotel in Germany and will be taking an early morning flight to Newark where I'll pick up my car and drive home) and won't stop to find any caches in that park. I suppose that the land manager can do whatever they want in that park but that doesn't mean the we, as geocachers have to find any of the caches they're placing. The fact that there is also an affiliation with a local club but it might not hurt to lobby to boycott the cache series, if only to make a point.

 

I'm with you NYPaddleCacher. I deleted my "will attend" log for the event that those caches were supposed to be released for and I will no longer be spending any of my time in that particular park finding caches.

 

So, making sure the NNJC membership was aware of both sides of the issue, I posted this thread twice (first time it disappeared, go figure). I just went to see of any activity and again it was deleted. As was my membership. Whomever runs their page decided I was a menace and revoked my membership on their site.

 

Like I mentioned before, CondorTrax, this is a bullying tactic. You're now excluded because you spoke your mind on the issues and raised awareness of them on both sides. I know it's a ways from home, but you're more than welcome in SJG (South Jersey Geocaching) as well as anyone else. We would never advocate forcefully archiving somebody's well maintained caches to make room for a geotrail.

Link to comment

It is clear that 'land manager' wishes trump any wishful thinking, so the caches should be removed ASAP.

 

However... I think that the Reviewer handling the archival process (assuming the CO is reluctant to do it directly) might be requested to help find new locations for the caches. By that I don't mean selecting the spots, but perhaps a little extra help if requested in identifying areas if needed. Most of the time these days such a relocation would result in having to recreate a new cache listing. That might be suitable to the current CO of course... but it might also be desireable to continue the old listing 'history'. A new listing would allow new finds by previous locators.

 

Anyway my point is that the Reviewer might just help smooth feathers a bit by being open to whatever they can do within their mandate...

 

As for the original complaint... this sort of issue arises in many groups. One little clique convinces themselves to represent all members. Sometimes they have such support and sometimes they only represent themselves.

That is something best left to the local group to sort out. I'm sure by now the group has been made aware of this by someone in the group. If they don't support such things then they will take action if justified. If they do support it (and they should consider their own caches in future) things will be fixed. Sounds to me that this new bunch of caches could be used as part of that suggested 'newbie' free app program... the one you don't need to register at GC.com to find with your smart phone... nah! that would be mean. We'll assume the placements are made to strict guidelines (GC)and Park, since they will be educational in nature. No buried, bolted to things etc. Right?

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

As for the general practice of "I have permission and want that spot from someone who doesn't", it sets a bad precedence and creates cacher to cacher disharmony. I don't know the logistics of this geotrail but in general, I feel you gain more by working with the community and/or individuals than bulldozing over them.

 

I feel you hit the nail on the head with that one, O. Maybe instead of pushing Weathernowcast's caches out of the way, they could have worked together with him to possibly integrate those caches or work around/move them. We're all on the same team here, so there's no reason why we all shouldn't be able to work together.

Link to comment

As one of the reviewers of this area, I was waiting for more information before I acted on the Needs Archive log. I see the cache owner archived the listings already, making the situation on my a little bit easier.

 

From my standpoint: Land managers request trumps all. I would have archived the listings but would have required a direct e-mail with a parks/municipality return email address. Anyone can create a caching account and name it whatever, say they work for whomever.

 

I would make this general suggestion to Ranger Lynn or any other official who plays the game AND wants to act the part of a park official. Create an official park account that is not a player account. Segregate the two accounts to remove the look of impropriety or anything like that. One official e-mail to the reviewers and we know forever that things from this account are park sanctioned.

 

As for the general practice of "I have permission and want that spot from someone who doesn't", it sets a bad precedence and creates cacher to cacher disharmony. I don't know the logistics of this geotrail but in general, I feel you gain more by working with the community and/or individuals than bulldozing over them.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment

I find this kind of disturbing especially if the land manager is a cacher also. It seems to me all they care about is getting their way to heck with the consequences. What they should have done was have an in person meeting with the cache owners to work something out that would be acceptable for all parties. Some cache owners may be happy to archive theirs. Those that felt strongly about keeping their caches in place should be allowed to do so. Sure its a bit more work that way but it would have been the RIGHT thing to do.

Link to comment

Since folks insist on having multiple threads on this subject, I am choosing the "Geocaching Topics" forum as center ground. I am moving the original thread from the Mid-Atlantic regional forum to the Geocaching Topics forum. Then I'm merging threads together. Don't nobody open no more threads, mmmm kay?

 

My thread was intended as a general discussion about the practice, rather than a dissection of this specific action. When I recieved the archive notices on the 7 year old caches for the Griggstown powertrail, it seemed to be unique. However it happened again. It got me wondering about how many other times across the planet this has occurred, or just here.

 

Just because someone has the authority to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically have the right to do it. A person gains the position of being in authority because the community entrusts them to do the correct thing. In this case, this is not private property but public. The manager does not own it and should act on behalf of everyone, rather than themself. There is also respect which is sadly missing. Showing respect for your fellow cachers is more important than any cache, or trail. Period.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

Just because someone has the authority to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically have the right to do it. A person gains the position of being in authority because the community entrusts them to do the correct thing. In this case, this is not private property but public. The manager does not own it and should act on behalf of everyone, rather than themself. There is also respect which is sadly missing. Showing respect for your fellow cachers is more important than any cache, or trail period.

 

Very well put, Fool. This is the kind of practice that will discourage cachers from placing any hides in the area. I would hate having to worry every day if my cache may get forcibly archived because the head of an organization and his caching land manager friend had a better idea.

 

It seems some people tend to forget that we participate in this hobby for fun. It's situations like these that suck all of the fun out. There's absolutely no good reason why cachers can't work together and show each other respect.

Link to comment

Obviously land managers have the final say. Yes, geocaching in these places is a privilege and not a right.

 

But how the hell can this guy (mr president) be part of this kind of thing? As a representative to the local caching community he should be working for the interests of the group!

 

Instead he seems to be molding things to fit his idea of a perfect caching experience, using his land manager crony as the muscle to do it.

 

I'm reminded of a term called 'lebensraum'.

 

I'd have told him to go screw.

 

NNJC Members - You need to find yourselves another leader.

Link to comment

As one of the reviewers of this area, I was waiting for more information before I acted on the Needs Archive log. I see the cache owner archived the listings already, making the situation on my a little bit easier.

 

From my standpoint: Land managers request trumps all. I would have archived the listings but would have required a direct e-mail with a parks/municipality return email address. Anyone can create a caching account and name it whatever, say they work for whomever.

 

I would make this general suggestion to Ranger Lynn or any other official who plays the game AND wants to act the part of a park official. Create an official park account that is not a player account. Segregate the two accounts to remove the look of impropriety or anything like that. One official e-mail to the reviewers and we know forever that things from this account are park sanctioned.

 

As for the general practice of "I have permission and want that spot from someone who doesn't", it sets a bad precedence and creates cacher to cacher disharmony. I don't know the logistics of this geotrail but in general, I feel you gain more by working with the community and/or individuals than bulldozing over them.

 

It wasn't difficult to figure out the "land manager" is a 3,300 find Geocacher who joined in 2010. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. That's about all I have to say. :)

Link to comment

I tried that. I posted this thread on the NNJC Facebook page. It was deleted so I posted it again. It was also deleted and they revoked my NNJC Facebook membership. If Old Navy doesn't like your cache he'll force-archive it; if he doesn't like your post he'll delete. Back in the day this was called "Cult of Personality".

The suggestion made earlier where these relpacement caches are held makes the most sense. Not sure if Cotton Malone or O'Reviewer have the authority to do that, though.

Link to comment

When I first noticed all those caches being archived I thought is was a bit odd and also thought it seemed like bullying. I thought maybe it was just me being too sensitive but I have to say bullying is bullying and it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am really rethinking my attendance at CTTS. Very sad.

Link to comment

From a "letter of the law" perspective, I agree that the land manager has the authority to grant, deny, or revoke permission for whatever geocaches they want.

 

But from a "plays well with others" perspective, just because they have the right to revoke permission like this, doesn't mean it is right for them to do so. It's one thing to ask cache owners to archive their caches to make room for the new series, or to volunteer their caches to be part of the new series. It's another thing to demand that cache owners archive their caches to make room for the new series.

 

There may or may not be appropriate political responses (for example, voting out the current NNJC leadership, leaving the NNJC, filing formal complaints to land manager's superiors). But from a technical perspective, it sure would be nice if geocaching.com enabled users to filter out caches owned by specific users who clearly don't play well with others.

Link to comment

From a "letter of the law" perspective, I agree that the land manager has the authority to grant, deny, or revoke permission for whatever geocaches they want.

 

But from a "plays well with others" perspective, just because they have the right to revoke permission like this, doesn't mean it is right for them to do so. It's one thing to ask cache owners to archive their caches to make room for the new series, or to volunteer their caches to be part of the new series. It's another thing to demand that cache owners archive their caches to make room for the new series.

 

There may or may not be appropriate political responses (for example, voting out the current NNJC leadership, leaving the NNJC, filing formal complaints to land manager's superiors). But from a technical perspective, it sure would be nice if geocaching.com enabled users to filter out caches owned by specific users who clearly don't play well with others.

 

It is a local issue and there are factors that are unknown to you. Specifically a large event is being held in that park, and the sponsors want to set out "new" caches and want old ones out that interfere with their plan of how the event should work. There is nothing wrong with the old caches, except that the event won't be able to work them in series. The locals are talking about skipping the event all together.

 

Given the contributions that Weathernowcast has made to the local caching community, it could have been brokered differently. He is a truly reasonable man with a great positive approach , maybe someone should have asked him first, rather than trying to bulldoze.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

It is a local issue and there are factors that are unknown to you.

 

I did some digging and this whole thing stinks of dirty laundry. This stuff should be limited to the regional forums, if allow at all.

 

So here's what I found. Weathernowcast is being asked to archive a cache in a park where this going to be an event that he is listed as one of the hosts by a geocaching club that he is apparently a member of.

 

Internal squabbles like these doesn't belong in these forums.

Link to comment

NNJC kept the tradition alive with the help of Weathernowcast, Team DiviDivi, Treequest, Chinster and Old Navy, and hosted the 2009 CTTS # 6 through today's CTTS # 10.

 

Weathernowcast, has anyone hosting the CTTS event thought of contacting Groundspeak to see if you could place Lab Caches for this event? These Lab Caches were very well received at this year's Geocaching Block Party.

Edited by Glenn
Link to comment

It is a local issue and there are factors that are unknown to you.

 

I did some digging and this whole thing stinks of dirty laundry. This stuff should be limited to the regional forums, if allow at all.

 

So here's what I found. Weathernowcast is being asked to archive a cache in a park where this going to be an event that he is listed as one of the hosts by a geocaching club that he is apparently a member of.

 

Internal squabbles like these doesn't belong in these forums.

 

I don't necessarily think so. If you would have told me before today that there were a 1,000 find a year Geocacher out there who would use their position as a land manager to force the of archival existing caches, I'd have told you you were crazy. I guess not. I'd say from the cautiously worded posts of some volunteer reviewers around here, they've not seen, or never expected to see, anything like this either. :unsure:

 

I see no "misunderstanding" or "internal squabbles" here. I see bullying. Or bulldozing, as others have said. :)

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
It is a local issue and there are factors that are unknown to you. Specifically a large event is being held in that park, and the sponsors want to set out "new" caches and want old ones out that interfere with their plan of how the event should work. There is nothing wrong with the old caches, except that the event won't be able to work them in series. The locals are talking about skipping the event all together.
Are there any other relevant factors that are unknown to me? Because none of this information changes my mind about the situation.
Link to comment

Just adding my 2¢. Fair or unfair it is the land managers call on how the land that they manage is to be used. That being if a land manager ousted my cache in favor of another cache I'd visit it and it better be better than the one that I had placed!

This could lead to a debate about who is more creative: the government or the private sector. Hmmm.....

:signalviolin:

Link to comment

My original post was to share my experience of a type of archive request that was previously opaque to me.

My goal was transparency to the request.

 

Obviously I have had some personal stake in this as I intended the geocaches to be permanent.

 

As I did not know such request could be the result of a club my motivations were largely based on Martin Niemölle's poem.

 

After I posted this I have received additional information that this previously opaque practice of forcing geocachers to archive their caches has been going on throughout the later half of 2013.

 

Specifically, I am now aware that the Griggstown Power trail associated with http://coord.info/GC4PEY1 required the removal of several geocaches and had also requested the removal of the final of a state wide contest.

 

The power trail was created by NNJC's pseudonym account:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=7ee7ede0-1dde-46c2-8383-fa0f168274ab&wid=025e0265-3964-4716-bd88-bfe48e8ee10a&ds=2

 

The account states:

"The mission of the Northern New Jersey Cachers (NNJC), is a non-profit geocaching organization, and one of the most respected geocaching organizations in the country, is to partner with New Jersey land officials across the state to develop new Quality Geotrail programs."

 

These are some of the archived geocaches for the geotrail:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC13PFC_sourland-view-trail?Submit6=Go

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCYNZ9_the-copper-mine?Submit6=Go

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCYNZ3_griggstown-bird-hunt?Submit6=Go

 

For your awareness.

Link to comment
It is a local issue and there are factors that are unknown to you. Specifically a large event is being held in that park, and the sponsors want to set out "new" caches and want old ones out that interfere with their plan of how the event should work. There is nothing wrong with the old caches, except that the event won't be able to work them in series. The locals are talking about skipping the event all together.
Are there any other relevant factors that are unknown to me? Because none of this information changes my mind about the situation.

 

Maybe this will help:

The President of NNJC, Old Navy and Ranger Lynn, Public Relations/Promotions rep on the NNJC Board (http://www.nnjc.org/officers.html) go to Kittatiny Valley State Park (KVSP) a month or so ago to scout out cache placement for; 1. an Interpretive GeoTrail; and 2. Caching Through The Snow #10 Event (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=f58fab3a-961a-40d6-8b51-00ddf568faae), both of which will occur simultaneously

 

While they're out exploring they soon realize that several already approved, placed and popular caches will interfere with where they wish to place these new caches. A note goes out informing these COs that they need to retrieve and archive their established caches. One CO sees this as an unnecessary infringement and ignores the request of NNJC. He then subsequently receives a formal note; this time from Park Ranger Lynn essentially forcing him to archive by a certain date or the caches will become the property of KVSP. See the original post above. Why couldn't they find another spot?

 

So, in what capacity do these two interact? Is there a conflict of interest? Who can the CO go to in an effort to express his disappointment? Certainly not an impartial land manager. That individual is conspiring in both capacities, as cacher and land manager, to propel their own agenda rather than the openness which is geocaching.

 

When I started, if you didn't like a cache you either avoided it or logged your opinion. If there wasn't space you found the space by doing the work. Now it appears there's a "special" group that will tell me what a good cache is and will archive my cache if they don't like it. There is precedent with Old Navy where he bullied a puzzle cacher into stop caching altogether. Now he's got the Park Ranger doing the dirty work.

 

This doesn't sound or feel right. John has always taken pride in NNJ goals. From their site:

 

"Our club goals and objectives are to promote Geocaching through public education, develop new, and maintain current partnerships with Land Managers from the NJ state, Counties, Townships and non-profit organizations. Build and develop a strong sense of NNJC community, team approach, open communications with members and land managers. Develop and present a quality geocaching experience for the geocaching community."

 

All very nice goals and objectives. But when in the course of achieving those goals you trample, bulldoze and bully your way through them, they eventually devolve into disappointment and only addressing those that agree with you.

 

My suggestion, partially taken from O'Reviewer's comments above, with respect, would be:

1. Have Ranger Lynn create a separate and distinct GC account where in her capacity as Land Manager/Ranger et. al. it is clearly understood.

2. Have the local GC reviewer not grant approval for the new caches that have trampled the existing placement. Essentially, creating a neutral ground-zero. Sure, the Park Ranger and Old Navy can go ahead and place event caches, but these will not be recognized as official geocaches. Why reward bad or questionable behavior on the part of a local club President and Land Manager?

Edited by CondorTrax
Link to comment
Just adding my 2¢. Fair or unfair it is the land managers call on how the land that they manage is to be used.

 

Not true. The land manager is required to implement the wishes of whatever legislative body has control of the land.

 

As a result, it is certainly everyone's right (as a taxpayer/voter) to contact the landowner's superiors, up to and including the legislators, to express their opinion about how the land is being managed.

 

It seems likely to me that this land manager probably thinks they are doing the right thing. It is also likely that they have not thought very deeply about the repercussions of their thoughtless abuse of their position.

Link to comment
2. Have the local GC reviewer not grant approval for the new caches that have trampled the existing placement.

Brilliant, and simple.

 

A parkocrat can force the GC reviewer to archive a cache, but nothing says a GC reviewer can be forced to publish a cache. Right?

 

There's another website out there that likely has no proximity issues with that park.

Link to comment
2. Have the local GC reviewer not grant approval for the new caches that have trampled the existing placement.

Brilliant, and simple.

 

A parkocrat can force the GC reviewer to archive a cache, but nothing says a GC reviewer can be forced to publish a cache. Right?

 

There's another website out there that likely has no proximity issues with that park.

 

Do you seriously think a reviewer is going to step into this political quagmire? When the caches are submitted, if they meet all the listing guidelines, they will be published.

Link to comment
2. Have the local GC reviewer not grant approval for the new caches that have trampled the existing placement.

Brilliant, and simple.

 

A parkocrat can force the GC reviewer to archive a cache, but nothing says a GC reviewer can be forced to publish a cache. Right?

 

There's another website out there that likely has no proximity issues with that park.

 

Do you seriously think a reviewer is going to step into this political quagmire? When the caches are submitted, if they meet all the listing guidelines, they will be published.

 

Political? If the reviewer had been notified why the caches were being requested, and knowing the approver, I believe he/she would have been more judicious about granting the OK. Keep in mind that the Prez and Land Manager had to first coerce the archiving so that the area had the appearance of being open. Again, if the local approver was aware of the tactics, the approval may never have occurred. It's about doing the right thing when given a crappy situation.

 

From what I've seen, nothing has yet been officially approved. I don't see the new caches so the local reviewer/approver can still act sending the appropriate message with his/her action.

Edited by CondorTrax
Link to comment

On the GC.com side, the final word is with the reviewer, appeals@Groundspeak, and ultimately Jeremy.

 

In this case, a small group of people are trying to use Groundspeak's system and volunteers for THEIR own agenda. They can't expect any right to cooperation. They can only hope for it.

 

I hope the reviewer does the right thing...

Link to comment
Maybe this will help:
I think we're in violent agreement. I'm already convinced that this use of "eminent domain" to force the archival of existing caches to create this geotrail was wrong.

 

My suggestion, partially taken from O'Reviewer's comments above, with respect, would be:

1. Have Ranger Lynn create a separate and distinct GC account where in her capacity as Land Manager/Ranger et. al. it is clearly understood.

2. Have the local GC reviewer not grant approval for the new caches that have trampled the existing placement. Essentially, creating a neutral ground-zero. Sure, the Park Ranger and Old Navy can go ahead and place event caches, but these will not be recognized as official geocaches. Why reward bad or questionable behavior on the part of a local club President and Land Manager?

I am not a reviewer, but if I were, I would recuse myself and forward the geotrail submissions to Groundspeak for an official decision, providing a complete explanation of why I was recusing myself.

 

Maybe Groundspeak would look into it... eventually. The caches might not make it through the appeals process by the December 8th deadline though.

Link to comment

At the end of the day, and after going through these posts again, I'm resolved to concluding that a corrupted NNJC will do whatever they want. They have a land manager coercing cachers (re-read the original post if in doubt), a local club President deciding which caches are of quality, revoking memberships of those with dissenting opinions, and ultimately creating an atmosphere where his perspectives are the only one's that count.

 

What's sad and disturbing is that this will be their go- forward practice. Griggstown was one, KVSP is now; which will be next? Which cacher will get the dreaded note "It's come to our attention your cache is in the way of ours. Mine's better, yours suck... it's time for yours to go. If you don't like it, we'll pick up the geo-litter and it becomes ours. Have a nice day. The NNJC Mob - Where we promote quality caching one way or another".

 

You will then be hand held down a trail where all the caches will look and feel the same. Sort of begins to feel like a manufactured and manipulated experience. Not the questionable fun of a Quik Check pine-tree cache followed by a crawl through a drainage culvert ending up with a crawl through a boulder field. Nope, your cache is in the way.... It doesn't comply and must be eliminated.

 

Does that sound like fun? It's coming your way.

 

I was banned from NNJC Facebook for supporting WeatherNowCast. Does that sound like an organization that values input? Ironic because their web site sure seems to propagandize it.

Edited by CondorTrax
Link to comment

If posters need to apply negative labels, please apply them to actions rather than to people. That means no name-calling.

 

So long as everyone's respectful and has a discussion that meets our forum conduct guidelines, no threads will disappear and no memberships will be revoked.

 

Thank you, from your usually friendly forum moderator.

Link to comment

There are many local dynamics here and I feel I'm not in a position to judge. I tend to naively think everyone has good intent at heart. So the land manager/cacher believes setting this "Educational" trail is good for the park. Then there is the question how to best go about this (asking vs telling, etc)

 

Yes this can happen anywhere. And even without the complexities of this specific example with the local club involved and the land manager being involved in the local club etc. All it would take is a land manager who is a cacher - or a cacher working with a land manager - to decide what they want to do in a particular property where there is land manager control. And that could include revoking permission to get "unwanted" caches out of the way. One would hope that this is done in a spirit of cooperation rather than dictating.

 

I don't think reviewers or Groundspeak can do much here - other than making sure the voice of the land manager is legitimate.

 

Where a local club is involved, and locals feel the club itself is not acting appropriately, then raising awareness of that is appropriate.

 

Just in the past week there was a post in the UK forum by a local land manager who is "thinking of putting in a brand new geocaching trail here. Something extra for people of all ages and backgrounds to do as they enjoy the woodlands." In this case the land manger is not a cacher and is asking cachers for help. There are 2 existing caches on that property, I know the owner of one of them and pointed this out to them, and they have offered to help. I'm sure they will look out for the owner of the other cache there too. But I can imagine the situation where a well meaning cacher gets carried away working with the land manager and designing this new trail and doesn't fully consider the impacts on other cache owners (as well as geocachers who may prefer the diversity of caches set by different owners).

Link to comment

So long as everyone's respectful and has a discussion that meets our forum conduct guidelines, no threads will disappear and no memberships will be revoked.

 

Considering this website won't even delete the accounts of spammers, I think we're all safe there. Thread deletion, rare as it is, I have seen though. :P

 

A note goes out informing these COs that they need to retrieve and archive their established caches. One CO sees this as an unnecessary infringement and ignores the request of NNJC. He then subsequently receives a formal note; this time from Park Ranger [name redacted] essentially forcing him to archive by a certain date or the caches will become the property of KVSP.

 

As unbelievable as this whole thing is, that is the most brutal part of this. "If you don't archive it by such and such a date, it becomes property of KVSP". Absolutely brutal, man.

 

I am not a reviewer, but if I were, I would recuse myself and forward the geotrail submissions to Groundspeak for an official decision, providing a complete explanation of why I was recusing myself.

 

Maybe Groundspeak would look into it... eventually. The caches might not make it through the appeals process by the December 8th deadline though.

 

In theory, I agree with the local reviewer recusing themselves and forwarding the new submissions to Groundspeak HQ, and think it would be a great idea. But neither you nor I know anything about the inner workings of the volunteer reviewer system, and if you could even do anything like that. :)

Link to comment

Well,I have many thoughts here.

I have found several of the cache in the archived series. They were excellent! (Far better than most of the caches in that park.)

I have attended Caching through the Snow a few times. (Generally not convenient for me.) Held at Krogh's Pub in Sparta. Lunchtime event with group caching before or after. I'm generally not into group caching. This event appears to have been moved to a smaller restaurant closer to Kittatinny Valley State Park. The event is not in the park. The event will have two seatings. I would think that that would be two events? Where would the two groups mingle?

I am a member of NNJC, but not an active member. I was quite surprised when the Ranger in question e-mailed me to recommend voting for the president of the club. (E-mail long ago deleted, so that will have to be considered 'hearsay'.)

I do applaud the time and effort taken by NNJC to work with the local parks. Thank you!

There are some cache owners who like to archive old caches and set out new ones in the same area every two years or so. Frequently for events. But those were that cache owner's caches. (That always struck me as odd. Oh, well.)

But forcibly archiving excellent caches (that were in the way) for a new power trail? Didactic at best. Reprehensible at worst! This should not be acceptable to anyone!

Yes. The land manager can have any caches in the land they manage archived. It is the ulterior motive here that is very disturbing, and has lowered my estimation of the cachers involved.

Link to comment

 

 

I then received this:

 

--------------

 

As a final follow-up to our face-to-face conversation on Saturday, October 5, as well as my additional email request dated November 22, and as the Kittatinny Valley State Park representative from whom you originally obtained permission to place your "Xmas" geocache series for "Caching Through the Snow 7," I require, on behalf of the staff at KVSP, that you archive and remove all of your geocaches from Kittatinny Valley State Park so as not to further impede the creation of a new interpretive geo-trail, the public launching of which will coincide with this year's "Caching Through the Snow 10" on Sunday, December 8, 2013.

 

 

As stated in my previous communications, other cache owners were asked to honor the same official request to make room for this family-friendly educational trail featuring geocaches that respect the interpretive themes of the park, namely its history and natural resources. I think you'll find that these geocaches will be more suitable for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs.

 

 

The archiving of GC2JJCE (Xmas Presents for Sue&Barry), GC2JFXX (Xmas Presents for Treequest), GC2JFY6 (Xmas Presents for klizich), and GC2JFXR (Xmas Presents for Briansnat) needs to be completed by Friday, November 28, 2013 to allow enough time for the reviewer process of the new geocaches. You have until the end of the calendar year to remove the actual containers, after which they will become property of KVSP.

 

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

Regards,

 

<name redacted>

Resource Interpretive Specialist, Natural Resources

Kittatinny Valley State Park

 

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website. I personally recuse myself from suggesting one though. :) I am serious though.

 

Or they could just make the new geotrail temporary caches for the event, and y'all find them and log the CTTS event 15 times. OK, that one I'm not serious about. :P

Link to comment

I know, like and respect the parties involved on both sides of this. John, Ranger Lynn and the rest of the NNJC have done a fantastic job working with various land managers, agencies and environmental organizations, to the point where many of them now consider geocachers to be valuable partners rather than a nuisance. They deserve a great deal of credit for this. Weathernowcast had a part in this as a past member of the NNJC board and is also known for placing many, high quality caches and has long been a highly respected member of the local geocaching community.

 

The NNJCs involvement with these agencies sometimes includes working with them to create these geotrails and it's great that the NNJC has convinced them that geocaching can be embraced as something beneficial. But I don't like this stepping on existing caches one bit. Of course the land manager has final say, but it sets an awful precedent. Since the NNJC is heavily involved with the selection the cache locations for these geo-trails there usually is no reason they can't accommodate caches already there. This combined with Griggstown I'm sure leaves the rest of the community wondering if their cache might be the next one deemed unworthy, or in the way. Will I be forced to archive my series of caches at historic Revolutionary War locations should they one day move forward with a Revolutionary War geotrail?

 

The goal of organizations such as the NNJC should be to work with land managers on the behalf of geocachers. In the NNJC's case it appears they have gotten so close to some land managers (usually a good thing) that they are now working with them at the expense of individual geocachers (a bad thing). If this sort of thing continues it may well become the NNJC vs. the local caching community which will be a very bad thing.

 

What is particularly disturbing about this specific situation to me is that to all appearances this was an NNJC up thing, not a land manager down thing. I really, really hope I'm wrong about that because it would put the respect I mentioned for some of these parties in my opening paragraph in the past tense.

 

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

The goal of organizations such as the NNJC should be to work with land managers on the behalf of geocachers.

 

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too.

 

That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

+1 You hit the nail on the head there.

 

fing34.gif

Link to comment

Brian, Yours is a reasoned view. However one thing is missing . Facebook pages of late and Facebook groupings have supplanted some of the forums as a means of communication. NNJC has one such page. Discussion of caching issues, request for assistance , group hikes, events are commonly posted to that site. I , not being a Facebook maven have used the site for each of those items, including mild criticism of certain placements. What was a little disconcerting was the reports of long standing members of the community being decertified from membership or posting privileges for having deigned to criticize this situation on the Facebook page. You, I, Weathernowcast will probably not always agree in all things with each other, but I suspect that at no time will we just say that we should not and may not communicate our respective views. Reportedly, the organization apparently took the view that significant opposing viewpoints were not welcomed on the organizational FB page and took their ball and went home.

 

Several years back, Weathernowcast was placing caches for an event and he communicated with me to ask if I would be willing to archive one of my caches to allow for another placement. his civility and gentility made my decision to archive very easy. It is that type of cooperative, friendly spirit that in my view needs to be rekindled. In my view the organization needs to better examine its role toward that end. They should immediately reach out to these persons reported to have been "booted" from Facebook privileges and apologize and reinstate .

Link to comment

I know, like and respect the parties involved on both sides of this. John, Ranger Lynn and the rest of the NNJC have done a fantastic job working with various land managers, agencies and environmental organizations, to the point where many of them now consider geocachers to be valuable partners rather than a nuisance. They deserve a great deal of credit for this. Weathernowcast had a part in this as a past member of the NNJC board and is also known for placing many, high quality caches and has long been a highly respected member of the local geocaching community.

 

The NNJCs involvement with these agencies sometimes includes working with them to create these geotrails and it's great that the NNJC has convinced them that geocaching can be embraced as something beneficial. But I don't like this stepping on existing caches one bit. Of course the land manager has final say, but it sets an awful precedent. Since the NNJC is heavily involved with the selection the cache locations for these geo-trails there usually is no reason they can't accommodate caches already there. This I'm sure leaves the rest of the community wondering if their cache might be the next one deemed unworthy, or in the way. Will I be forced to archive my series of caches at historic Revolutionary War locations, should they one day move forward with a Revolutionary War geotrail?

 

The goal of organizations such as the NNJC should be to work with land managers on the behalf of geocachers. In the NNJC's case it appears they have gotten so close to some land managers (usually a good thing) that they are now working with them at the expense of individual geocachers (a bad thing). If this sort of thing continues it may well become the NNJC vs. the local caching community which will be a very bad thing.

 

What is particularly disturbing about this specific situation to me is that to all appearances this was an NNJC up thing, not a land manager down thing. I really, really hope I'm wrong about that because it would put the respect I mentioned for some of these parties in my opening paragraph in the past tense.

 

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too. When I was a reviewer in Utah, their state parks system had started placing their own caches. Often one of their submissions conflicted with an existing cache. I hesitated at first to send my "Sorry your cache is too close to another" note knowing that they could easily write back with "Sorry, the other cache has to go". They never did and simply found a different spot. I'm sure some agencies may not be as accommodating. That's why those of who are in areas with local geocaching organizations need for those organizations to advocate for US. Even if that means standing up for that guy who owns that micro which will cause them to have to skip .1 mile on their new geotrail.

 

Brian, Yours is a reasoned view. However one thing is missing . Facebook pages of late and Facebook groupings have supplanted some of the forums as a means of communication. NNJC has one such page. Discussion of caching issues, request for assistance , group hikes, events are commonly posted to that site. I , not being a Facebook maven have used the site for each of those items, including mild criticism of certain placements. What was a little disconcerting was the reports of long standing members of the community being decertified from membership or posting privileges for having deigned to criticize this situation on the Facebook page. You, I, Weathernowcast will probably not always agree in all things with each other, but I suspect that at no time will we just say that we should not and may not communicate our respective views. Reportedly, the organization apparently took the view that significant opposing viewpoints were not welcomed on the organizational FB page and took their ball and went home.

 

Several years back, Weathernowcast was placing caches for an event and he communicated with me to ask if I would be willing to archive one of my caches to allow for another placement. his civility and gentility made my decision to archive very easy. It is that type of cooperative, friendly spirit that in my view needs to be rekindled. In my view the organization needs to better examine its role toward that end. They should immediately reach out to these persons reported to have been "booted" from Facebook privileges and apologize and reinstate .

 

I don't think TPTB realize the uproar this issue has caused in the caching community. Just about every caching Facebook page whose region is within 50-100 miles of this event is talking about it and either posting snippets of this thread or links to it (it's how I learned about it as I'm rarely on the Groundspeak forums anymore) and there's a lot of serious geocachers who go to this event religiously who are at least thinking of opting out, even calls to boycott it (I have not gone to this event and won't be able to this year either, but I honestly would've been one of the ones to cancel if I was intending to go).

 

My biggest concern (and one others have given) is in terms of the precedent this gives. One thing being shouted out a lot is what's next, land managers will do this in a park that a historic cache like Cache Ninja's GERBIL is in (oldest cache in NJ and one of the oldest in the entire NY metropolitan area) and do it in?

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa
Link to comment

I'll start by agreeing with this part of Briansnat's post above:

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too.

I volunteered to help our State agency put together and publish their state-wide caching challenge a few years ago. One of the parks experienced a proximity issue with previously placed caches, and sure enough, the Manager requested all caches in that park (something like 8-10) to be archived to make way for their 2-stage multi. And that is exactly what happened. Plenty of room in that park for everybody to play nicely together.

 

I'll disagree with this statement that has been made a few times in this thread, though:

Of course the land manager has final say

 

Yes, the land manager can request previously existing caches to be archived and removed, and Groundspeak must comply. The "final say" part, though, is getting their replacement caches published by Groundspeak. I'm not aware that KVSP, any other park or land management agency, in NJ or anywhere else, has any inalienable right to have their caches published on this website. I really hope GS chooses not to condone these shenanigans, especially if the backroom politics between KVSP and NNJC reported in this thread are accurate.

 

If KVSP wants to have their own "caching thing" going on, let them put out however many private caches they want...unpublished on this site.

Link to comment

Brian, Yours is a reasoned view. However one thing is missing . Facebook pages of late and Facebook groupings have supplanted some of the forums as a means of communication. NNJC has one such page. Discussion of caching issues, request for assistance , group hikes, events are commonly posted to that site. I , not being a Facebook maven have used the site for each of those items, including mild criticism of certain placements. What was a little disconcerting was the reports of long standing members of the community being decertified from membership or posting privileges for having deigned to criticize this situation on the Facebook page. You, I, Weathernowcast will probably not always agree in all things with each other, but I suspect that at no time will we just say that we should not and may not communicate our respective views. Reportedly, the organization apparently took the view that significant opposing viewpoints were not welcomed on the organizational FB page and took their ball and went home.

 

Several years back, Weathernowcast was placing caches for an event and he communicated with me to ask if I would be willing to archive one of my caches to allow for another placement. his civility and gentility made my decision to archive very easy. It is that type of cooperative, friendly spirit that in my view needs to be rekindled. In my view the organization needs to better examine its role toward that end. They should immediately reach out to these persons reported to have been "booted" from Facebook privileges and apologize and reinstate .

 

Whereas up until yesterday I could view the NNJC Facebook site, today I am completely blocked.

Link to comment

If the Resource Interpretive Specialist truly wants their Geotrail out there "for park visitors of all ages to discover during my monthly geocaching programs", they could merely list them on a different Geocaching website. I personally recuse myself from suggesting one though. :) I am serious though.

 

Or they could not list them at all. There is a park near me that has it's own geocaching program. They hand out a flyer with a list of caches they've hidden in the park. These caches are not listed anywhere else.

 

They could also make a bookmark list of caches and include the caches that are "in their way" on the bookmark list. This way the caches in the series can be owned by more than one person or group. That is, after all, what the bookmark list is there for!

 

For those who dismiss this as a "local issue", as more and more agencies and land managers embrace geocaching it could become your problem too.

 

I agree that this issue could pop up elsewhere and deserves discussion but discussion stated out with names named and and keeps cycling back around to those specific names. Since no one from NNJC has come here to official represent them and either confirm or rebuke what a current (former?) member of the organization is accusing them of we have only have one side of the story and like all one sided stories it's becoming a basing contest against the party not present.

 

In fact we have already been warned by a moderator....

 

If posters need to apply negative labels, please apply them to actions rather than to people. That means no name-calling.

 

I don't think TPTB realize the uproar this issue has caused in the caching community. Just about every caching Facebook page whose region is within 50-100 miles of this event is talking about it

 

briansnat, this sounds like the definition of a local issue to me. I'm more than happy to discuss this in a general sense but I won't comment on specific events happening on the other side of the country that have no knowledge of outside of this forum.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...