Geocache Archive Requests

21.9k · December 4, 2013

You appointed (name redacted)as your moderator and he claims the reason for banning me, under your leadership, was because I was ranting and need to cool off.

I saw a post on the NNJC facebook page from that moderator, saying that folks could come here to the Groundspeak Forums and rant all they want. I got a good laugh out of that. For the most part, posts by New Jersey geocachers such as CondorTrax have been thoughtful and in line with our forum guidelines. A few isolated instances -- two of which involved geocachers from outside the area -- were dealt with by the moderating team here. This kept the thread from spinning out of control into "rant" territory.

I hope everyone would agree that a moderated discussion is better than a deleted discussion. I found this thread to be very good and thoughtful reading. I am especially happy that the New Jersey participants seemed to appreciate the suggestions made by OReviewer, myself and other Geocaching volunteers and forum community members about better ways to approach situations like this.

December 4, 2013

You appointed (name redacted)as your moderator and he claims the reason for banning me, under your leadership, was because I was ranting and need to cool off.

I saw a post on the NNJC facebook page from that moderator, saying that folks could come here to the Groundspeak Forums and rant all they want. I got a good laugh out of that. For the most part, posts by New Jersey geocachers such as CondorTrax have been thoughtful and in line with our forum guidelines. A few isolated instances -- two of which involved geocachers from outside the area -- were dealt with by the moderating team here. This kept the thread from spinning out of control into "rant" territory.

I hope everyone would agree that a moderated discussion is better than a deleted discussion. I found this thread to be very good and thoughtful reading. I am especially happy that the New Jersey participants seemed to appreciate the suggestions made by OReviewer, myself and other Geocaching volunteers and forum community members about better ways to approach situations like this.

Thanks for the comment. We try....

Edited December 4, 2013 by CondorTrax

2k · December 4, 2013

There may be some facts out there (the otherside of the story) that the particpants in this thread don't know. But even if there are, i can't imagine what the otherside could possibly say to justify their actions.

Normally I assume that there's more to a story like this, so I've been waiting for someone, friend or foe, to present the other side. But at this point, the fact that no one has is starting to make me think there really isn't one.

The most your going to get for the moment is the response the president of NNJC posted on their FB page defending the policy of force-archiving for the greater good. Has to be on one of the first 2 pages. I posted it so look for my avatar.

Found it. Here's the full commentary:

"From (redacted) - President of NNJC

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.

Two points to be raised. One, was it really saturated with caches that apparently weren't properly authorized (or separately were authorized but determined to be in the way)? Two, how saturated will it be when the new ones are published?

December 5, 2013

As far as Griggstown is concerned: There were 6 or so caches in the park having been there for almost 6 years. One of those was a final to a regional challenge cache. NNJC went in there and apparently convinced the land managers that they had a better vision of how to place caches. In looking over the "plan" the existing caches were in the way of the meticulous 528' grid that would have 28 new caches placed. Why the existing caches couldn't co-exist is still a point of contention. It's not like the land manager could have distinguished one from another. From what I gathered, the existing caches didn't have the theme associated with the new placements, therefore, they had to be force-archived. Under the guise of "land manager demands your caches must be removed", the cache owner was sent a note demanding their removal.

The gist here is that NNJC didn't collaborate with the CO and land-manager to have a way to manage the new and existing; it was simpler to vacate what had been established and popular caches. The concept is idyllic; the execution is Draconian.

NNJC's policy and plan is to extend this model to other parks and across the state. It isn't hearsay. This link is for an interview given by NNJC President on the opening of the Griggstown trail.

http://franklinreporter.com/2013/10/28/high-tech-scavenger-hunt-launched-griggstown-grassland-preserve/

Again, the concept is a good one. What's needed is more collaboration with the COs and not the statement of direction to force-archive that which doesn't meet their agenda.

As far as KVSP, we havent seen the new caches. They are to be published to coincide with the Caching Through The SNow #10 event this Sunday (12/10). However, there are over 200 active caches in the park. 7 had to be force-archived to make room for those being introduced Sunday (the Genesis of this issue). There were possibly another 6 which were voluntarily archived. That is, the CO was either a board member or close friend.

Edited December 5, 2013 by CondorTrax

December 5, 2013

One of those was a final to a regional challenge cache.

Compilation cache; a challenge cache is something totally different.

December 5, 2013

One of those was a final to a regional challenge cache.

Compilation cache; a challenge cache is something totally different.

Apologies. Here's the cache listing that had to be archived. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1NJAZ_cjcc-central-jersey-checkpoint-challenge?guid=80def225-0b10-4a1e-9b98-70cb0f9bc963

As you can appreciate, it wasn't a "simple" traditional, but one that affected 25 other placements. I'm belaboring the point, but I again ask why NNJC couldn't accommodate it's existence knowing it was part of a larger scope?

December 5, 2013

One of those was a final to a regional challenge cache.

Compilation cache; a challenge cache is something totally different.

Apologies for mis-labeling.

This is the listing for the "Central Jersey Checkpoint Challenge": http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1NJAZ_cjcc-central-jersey-checkpoint-challenge?guid=80def225-0b10-4a1e-9b98-70cb0f9bc963

As you can appreciate, it wasn't a "simple" traditional, but one that affected 25 other placements. I'm belaboring the point, but I again ask why NNJC couldn't accommodate it's existence knowing it was part of a larger scope?

3.1k · December 5, 2013

I just don't see why it's such an issue. If a park asks for caches to be removed, they have every right to do so. It's their land.

I suppose it irks folks to know that caches are being archived to allow for new caches to be placed. I can see how that might make for some hurt feelings. But, the bottom line is that this is their land, and they can create partnerships and caches of their own liking on their lands.

It sounds to me like the only thing that could have improved the situation is better communication. As always, communication is key in this game.

3.1k · December 5, 2013

The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager,

I bolded the key phrase. As the land manager, they have the right to determine how and where this hobby is represented in their property. Personally, I think it's a pretty crappy thing for this so called President to do. If I were the cache owner, I would have a sit down with the land manager and express my views on the matter.

I should edit to add this^.

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

5.3k · December 5, 2013

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

Maybe in Canada parks are privately owned property, but that is not true in this case. Land managers are entrusted with managing public lands. The land does not belong to the land manager.

1.3k · December 5, 2013

I just don't see why it's such an issue. If a park asks for caches to be removed, they have every right to do so. It's their land.

I suppose it irks folks to know that caches are being archived to allow for new caches to be placed. I can see how that might make for some hurt feelings. But, the bottom line is that this is their land, and they can create partnerships and caches of their own liking on their lands.

It sounds to me like the only thing that could have improved the situation is better communication. As always, communication is key in this game.

I felt the same way when I first started reading this thread. Landowners have the final say and we, as cache owners, are placing our caches on their property with their blessing. If they decide to revoke that permission, then tough cookies for us. But in this case, where a surgical knife would've been more appropriate, the landowners were bashing away with a sledgehammer.

This could have been a great opportunity for all parties involved to carve out an agreement, to work together and foster an inviting geocaching community. Instead, the landowners/stewards just tossed all the existing caches out without regard for anything but their own agenda. If this was just a "clueless" landowner, it would be almost understandable. The fact that this was instigated by seasoned geocachers is pretty low and totally against what the spirit of this hobby is.

I still support landowners having the final say. I just hope that in the future, things can be communicated a lot better and not so heavy-handed.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Crow-T-Robot

6.5k · December 5, 2013

The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager,

I bolded the key phrase. As the land manager, they have the right to determine how and where this hobby is represented in their property. Personally, I think it's a pretty crappy thing for this so called President to do. If I were the cache owner, I would have a sit down with the land manager and express my views on the matter.

I should edit to add this^.

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

This is true, but shouldn't the decisions be made without any agenda or influence from outside parties? From what we have read in this thread, the park ranger seems to be more than a bit chummy with the NNJC president. And the decision was made based on the desire of a smaller group, not the greater good of the community. Again, I can only base my opinions on what has been presented in this thread as the NNJC hasn't seen fit to offer up their side of the issue.

10.2k · December 5, 2013

The gist here is that NNJC didn't collaborate with the CO and land-manager to have a way to manage the new and existing; it was simpler to vacate what had been established and popular caches. The concept is idyllic; the execution is Draconian.

NNJC's policy and plan is to extend this model to other parks and across the state. It isn't hearsay. This link is for an interview given by NNJC President on the opening of the Griggstown trail.

http://franklinreporter.com/2013/10/28/high-tech-scavenger-hunt-launched-griggstown-grassland-preserve/

Again, the concept is a good one. What's needed is more collaboration with the COs and not the statement of direction to force-archive that which doesn't meet their agenda.

Indeed a good concept. Griggstown is an "earn a token" Geotrail. Note I said "token", not a Geocoin. The video in the article has an interview with an (I presume) non-Geocacher land manager who makes it clear it was presented to them that in addition to all the local Geocachers, they expect it to bring in Geocachers from outside the area, and those Geocachers would be spending money in Franklin County. Pretty standard Geotrail stuff, not unlike the one in my area administered by a non-profit tourism promotion agency. Standard Geotrail Stuff = Good.

Steamrolling of existing caches, and the arrogance displayed by a Geocacher N.J. State Park Ranger via a needs archived log, and a follow up lecture posted as a note by a different Geocacher N.J. State Park Ranger = Bad.

I'm sure NNJC has no intention of discontinuing this Geotrail program. I would think they could find middle ground with other Geocachers and existing caches. There is no need to steamroll them. There is no need for a State Park Ranger to lecture them, all while they're being steamrolled.

14k · December 5, 2013

I just don't see why it's such an issue. If a park asks for caches to be removed, they have every right to do so. It's their land.

As I said earlier. They can force caches to be archived but they can't force Groundspeak to have the new caches they want to place listed on the web site.

GS could take a stand on this.

10.2k · December 5, 2013

The president of a local geoclub along with a land manager,

I bolded the key phrase. As the land manager, they have the right to determine how and where this hobby is represented in their property. Personally, I think it's a pretty crappy thing for this so called President to do. If I were the cache owner, I would have a sit down with the land manager and express my views on the matter.

I should edit to add this^.

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

This is true, but shouldn't the decisions be made without any agenda or influence from outside parties? From what we have read in this thread, the park ranger seems to be more than a bit chummy with the NNJC president. And the decision was made based on the desire of a smaller group, not the greater good of the community. Again, I can only base my opinions on what has been presented in this thread as the NNJC hasn't seen fit to offer up their side of the issue.

The Park Ranger is in fact an NNJC officer.

The other side of the story would be great, but I can't imagine it would be anything that could sway the masses here. Is there an underlying feeling that Geocaching developed in these parks in a haphazard, unorganized fashion, and they can do it better? Is there an underlying feeling existing caches are generally too far off trail, and have a greater environmental impact on the parks? I think it's hard to argue environmental impact when you're replacing a handful of caches with a "for the numbers geotrail". And it's hard to argue we can do it better, when the owner of the handful of existing caches is not only well respected, but one of the longest tenured continuously active Geocachers in the entire world. :huh:

December 5, 2013

I just don't see why it's such an issue. If a park asks for caches to be removed, they have every right to do so. It's their land.

I suppose it irks folks to know that caches are being archived to allow for new caches to be placed. I can see how that might make for some hurt feelings. But, the bottom line is that this is their land, and they can create partnerships and caches of their own liking on their lands.

It sounds to me like the only thing that could have improved the situation is better communication. As always, communication is key in this game.

As the originator of this thread I must say that I agree with your post. It is the land manager's responsibility to impliment the policies of the park.

When I was contacted by KVSP directly, I archived the caches.

The reason for my original post aligns with your conclusion. I was creating visibility to the fact that a local geocaching club was involved in the decision process as to which geocaches to archive in the park. I had no idea this club, which I had understood represented the local caching community, had become involved in such a decision process. So I posted the thread and we have had this informative and I think helpful discussion here.

December 5, 2013

FYI In case you missed it. It is a nice public outreach video about geocaching in central New Jersey.

However, I draw your attention to 1:08 - 1:35 in the video in this link. That is the transparency that is most helpful to understand what is going on here. It may be subtle, but the proposed future of geocaching in New Jersey is being defined in those 27 seconds.

http://franklinreporter.com/2013/10/28/high-tech-scavenger-hunt-launched-griggstown-grassland-preserve/

38.2k · December 5, 2013

I just don't see why it's such an issue. If a park asks for caches to be removed, they have every right to do so. It's their land.

I suppose it irks folks to know that caches are being archived to allow for new caches to be placed. I can see how that might make for some hurt feelings. But, the bottom line is that this is their land, and they can create partnerships and caches of their own liking on their lands.

It sounds to me like the only thing that could have improved the situation is better communication. As always, communication is key in this game.

I don't think anybody questions the right of park management to regulate or ban geocacing, or even selectively have caches archived.

I think the difference here is that the "land manager" in this case is also a cacher and NNJC board member. What irked a lot of people was the impression that the power trail was planned by the NNJC hierarchy (including this land manager), then the land manger took off her "geocacher hat" and put on her "land manager hat" to clear the way for the power trail. At best there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Edited December 5, 2013 by briansnat

2k · December 5, 2013

How many people actually read the entire cache description all the way through? "Educational" only in the sense that you get a brief description and a photo/drawing/artwork of the animal/people involved in each cache. Are the containers (Griggstown) similarly Audobon themed or standard run of the mill containers? Except for one or two of the hides (not counting the "final"), not many favorite points awarded. Only the three main types of caches (unknown, multi and traditional) are there and I find it interesting to note that an EC is absent, although it appears one might have been able to be implemented at the copper mine. THAT would certainly have been educational.

I like their quote at the end of each page (sarcasm font). "The Northern New Jersey Cachers, NNJC is about promoting a quality caching experience in Northern New Jersey." I'm sure it's not always the case, but don't most people, when they put out their hides at least attempt to make it a quality cache? I don't mean a unique/special quality cache (although that would be great and much preferred). Instead I mean a cache that can hopefully stand the wear and tear of the elements, muggles,, and high traffic from fellow cachers. A log that is in good shape, swag that isn't moldy or wet, and a container that can hold up in bad weather and repeated handling are what I hope to find in what I would consider a quality cache. I really don't think/hope cachers placing a cache purposely set out to create a sucky (non-quality) cache experience for the future seekers. Some unknowingly do, but I can't imagine they think it's a really bad idea when they place them. To think that the caches that were there previously weren't quality caches that matched the goals of the group is a bit condescending, IMO.

As has been mentioned many times, I find it difficult to understand how they couldn't incorporate existing caches instead of just bulldozing their whims through the existing system. Their intent appears to be good, if a bit sanitary in nature (cloned, unoriginal containers), but it appears the execution, with regard to the spirit of the game and fellow geocachers, is lacking.

December 5, 2013

How many people actually read the entire cache description all the way through? "Educational" only in the sense that you get a brief description and a photo/drawing/artwork of the animal/people involved in each cache. Are the containers (Griggstown) similarly Audobon themed or standard run of the mill containers? Except for one or two of the hides (not counting the "final"), not many favorite points awarded. Only the three main types of caches (unknown, multi and traditional) are there and I find it interesting to note that an EC is absent, although it appears one might have been able to be implemented at the copper mine. THAT would certainly have been educational.

I like their quote at the end of each page (sarcasm font). "The Northern New Jersey Cachers, NNJC is about promoting a quality caching experience in Northern New Jersey." I'm sure it's not always the case, but don't most people, when they put out their hides at least attempt to make it a quality cache? I don't mean a unique/special quality cache (although that would be great and much preferred). Instead I mean a cache that can hopefully stand the wear and tear of the elements, muggles,, and high traffic from fellow cachers. A log that is in good shape, swag that isn't moldy or wet, and a container that can hold up in bad weather and repeated handling are what I hope to find in what I would consider a quality cache. I really don't think/hope cachers placing a cache purposely set out to create a sucky (non-quality) cache experience for the future seekers. Some unknowingly do, but I can't imagine they think it's a really bad idea when they place them. To think that the caches that were there previously weren't quality caches that matched the goals of the group is a bit condescending, IMO.

As has been mentioned many times, I find it difficult to understand how they couldn't incorporate existing caches instead of just bulldozing their whims through the existing system. Their intent appears to be good, if a bit sanitary in nature (cloned, unoriginal containers), but it appears the execution, with regard to the spirit of the game and fellow geocachers, is lacking.

These are my sentiments exactly.

7.5k · December 5, 2013

Apologies for mis-labeling.

This is the listing for the "Central Jersey Checkpoint Challenge": http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1NJAZ_cjcc-central-jersey-checkpoint-challenge?guid=80def225-0b10-4a1e-9b98-70cb0f9bc963

As you can appreciate, it wasn't a "simple" traditional, but one that affected 25 other placements. I'm belaboring the point, but I again ask why NNJC couldn't accommodate it's existence knowing it was part of a larger scope?

I agree that it makes no sense to bludgeon old caches instead of working with and around them, and attacking -- there's really no other word for it -- a previous community oriented cache seems particularly outrageous.

But having said that, this final could be moved by simply adding to the description an offset to be applied to the calculated coordinates. Another approach I've seen to this kind of problem is having the geochecker accept the original coordinates, but then respond by giving the final coordinates. It would be a shame to lose this culmination simply because the original location was no longer viable regardless of why.

7.5k · December 5, 2013

The most your going to get for the moment is the response the president of NNJC posted on their FB page defending the policy of force-archiving for the greater good. Has to be on one of the first 2 pages. I posted it so look for my avatar.

Found it. Here's the full commentary:

I saw this the first time, but thanks for reposting it so I can reconsider it. This explains why they are planting caches, and why they think existing owners have no grounds to oppose them. (I particularly like the part about how they asked ever so nicely pretty please for people to archive their caches, but then they admit that when that didn't work, they had the land manager stomp on the caches.)

The case I keep hoping to hear is why placing these new trails cannot be done by working with the owners of existing caches instead of treating them as unimportant and undesirable competitors. This became an even more important question after I saw the chilling 27 seconds of video that makes it clear they intend to do this over and over again all over the state.

December 5, 2013

The problem in this situation is not Land Managers rights to have a cache archived. We all agree that is their right. The issue is where a geocaching group wants to set up a trail and when CO's are not willing to happily archive their caches, they run to the Land Manager, in this case apparently a board member of the group, and has them do the dirty work.

In this case it would go a long ways for the Land Manager to recuse him/her self for conflict of interest and have a higher up review the situation.

I was glad to see at least 1 side is trying to mend fences though.

December 5, 2013

How many people actually read the entire cache description all the way through? "Educational" only in the sense that you get a brief description and a photo/drawing/artwork of the animal/people involved in each cache. Are the containers (Griggstown) similarly Audobon themed or standard run of the mill containers? Except for one or two of the hides (not counting the "final"), not many favorite points awarded. Only the three main types of caches (unknown, multi and traditional) are there and I find it interesting to note that an EC is absent, although it appears one might have been able to be implemented at the copper mine. THAT would certainly have been educational.

I like their quote at the end of each page (sarcasm font). "The Northern New Jersey Cachers, NNJC is about promoting a quality caching experience in Northern New Jersey." I'm sure it's not always the case, but don't most people, when they put out their hides at least attempt to make it a quality cache? I don't mean a unique/special quality cache (although that would be great and much preferred). Instead I mean a cache that can hopefully stand the wear and tear of the elements, muggles,, and high traffic from fellow cachers. A log that is in good shape, swag that isn't moldy or wet, and a container that can hold up in bad weather and repeated handling are what I hope to find in what I would consider a quality cache. I really don't think/hope cachers placing a cache purposely set out to create a sucky (non-quality) cache experience for the future seekers. Some unknowingly do, but I can't imagine they think it's a really bad idea when they place them. To think that the caches that were there previously weren't quality caches that matched the goals of the group is a bit condescending, IMO.

As has been mentioned many times, I find it difficult to understand how they couldn't incorporate existing caches instead of just bulldozing their whims through the existing system. Their intent appears to be good, if a bit sanitary in nature (cloned, unoriginal containers), but it appears the execution, with regard to the spirit of the game and fellow geocachers, is lacking.

NNJC President has been a vocal advocate of caches that bring people someplace interesting and evocative. I've done many of Old Navy's traditionals and multis and have always been impressed with their placement and work that has gone into making them an adventure. Some of my earliest cache finds were his in Lord Stirling park. He does not like the park-and grab, lamp-post, urban micro in a pine-tree, experience. Nor is he a big fan of difficult puzzles that appeal to a narrow caching sector.

Their attempt to create a better experience at the expense of others is at the core. My humble suggestion is for them to continue the individuality they have been so applauded for, but not to impose that individuality onto others. And certainly not condemn an existing cache to Archive-land because it doesn't apply.

3.1k · December 5, 2013

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

Maybe in Canada parks are privately owned property, but that is not true in this case. Land managers are entrusted with managing public lands. The land does not belong to the land manager.

Yeah, no.

The USFWS, for example, manages "public land". However, they choose to manage it as they interpret their directives. Physical geocaches are not allowed on Refuges or Waterfowl Management Areas, and therefore they are managing the public property within the bounds of Federal Regulations. My boss, and my boss's boss, and their boss's boss can put their boot down entirely at any moment, or possilby remove restrictions so long as it can be allowed under existing CFR.

State Parks are no different. They manage the lands, and they can make decisions to allow, disallow, or make exceptions. That's all.

Back to the issue at hand, it sure seems shady. One doesn't have to venture very far to see how chummy things look between the interested parties. The communication was unfortunately very heavy-handed and poorly conducted. The surrounding circumstances certainly make it look suspicious, and that there is a conflict of interest.

As someone who manages land for a station, I put myself in this situation. I suddenly realized that if I were her, I would look rather poorly perched on this issue if attention was brought to her supervisor. If I acted in this way in an official capacity, my boss would likely not have a kindly reaction.

My 2 cents? Bring it to the specific park's Superintendant. Plead your case to them, presenting the factual information at hand. Demonstrate that the existing caches served the same purpose as the new ones--to educate and bring people to the park in a positive fashion--and then talk about how the Ranger handled the situation. A hand slap might be in order.

Orrrr...the Superinendant may have given full oversight to this Ranger, and the point is moot. But, as users of the park system, your concerns about professionalism and conflict of interest are valid. Any Super would want to know about this poor example of public interaction and outreach.

December 6, 2013

From what I gathered, the existing caches didn't have the theme associated with the new placements, therefore, they had to be force-archived. Under the guise of "land manager demands your caches must be removed", the cache owner was sent a note demanding their removal.

Actually two of the new Griggstown Geotrail caches have the same name as previous caches there (Sourland View and The Copper Mine) and are placed in nearly the same locations. The Copper Mine was moved about 500 feet further east/northeast, presumably to squeeze more caches in. Maybe the new "copper mine" is closer to the actual historical location of the mine, but I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if the original CO put more time and research into it.

The main problem with geotrails like this being placed around the state by the same group or individual is how sterile geocaching will become with 98% of the caching community exluded from hiding caches. We don't all want to do cookie-cutter family friendly/easy (boring) caches. Its like a big box store kicking out all the little guys. ...And we aren't all numbers hounds (although apparently I have been described as one in a "will attend" log on the CTTS page which is so far from the truth that its hilarious )

I've done many of Old Navy's traditionals and multis and have always been impressed with their placement and work that has gone into making them an adventure. Some of my earliest cache finds were his in Lord Stirling park. He does not like the park-and grab, lamp-post, urban micro in a pine-tree, experience. Nor is he a big fan of difficult puzzles that appeal to a narrow caching sector.

I agree with this somewhat, as I have one of his earlier caches on my "recommended caches" bookmark list (pre-favorite points era), but I haven't been as impressed with the geotrails and series I have seen which were pretty repetitive, particular some of the more recent ones in Lord Stirling. Some of the ones at Duke Farms were pretty "meh" in my opinion although most of the locations were nice. He has a tendency to "re-use" a park every year and archive the old and hide all new caches in nearly the same spots. Its still too oriented towards numbers caching. That's what these forced archivals and taking over the whole park seem like to me, a way to reserve a whole park. So next year the new ones at KVSP can be archived and a new set can be put in for next years CTTS. This may not be the case but is just the way it looks to me.

In the case of Duke Farms, no caches were placed near the one cache that was force archived, but I see that additional caches have been added by NNJC since the geotrail came out, so it seems like they were trying to wipe the area clean to reserve spaces for future NNJC caches only. Again, just my opinion.

Edited December 6, 2013 by trowel32

10.1k · December 6, 2013

On the other hand, here are some logs for a seldom found mystery cache at Pyramid Mountain:

Archive 07/16/2013
Due to a county event, lack of recent finds, and my inability to remove the cache, I must archive this one.

Found it 07/13/2013

Forgot to log this as I found this last winter while working with the Morris County Park Commission folks while looking to place a new Pyramid Mountain Geocaching program for kids and families. I spoke to the CO, and unfortunately this cache final is too near the location for a new MCP cache, so the CO has graciously agreed to archive this cache to make room.

So, this is a long-term, on-going problem.

1.7k · December 6, 2013

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

Maybe in Canada parks are privately owned property, but that is not true in this case. Land managers are entrusted with managing public lands. The land does not belong to the land manager.

Yeah, no.

The USFWS, for example, manages "public land". However, they choose to manage it as they interpret their directives. Physical geocaches are not allowed on Refuges or Waterfowl Management Areas, and therefore they are managing the public property within the bounds of Federal Regulations. My boss, and my boss's boss, and their boss's boss can put their boot down entirely at any moment, or possilby remove restrictions so long as it can be allowed under existing CFR.

State Parks are no different. They manage the lands, and they can make decisions to allow, disallow, or make exceptions. That's all.

Back to the issue at hand, it sure seems shady. One doesn't have to venture very far to see how chummy things look between the interested parties. The communication was unfortunately very heavy-handed and poorly conducted. The surrounding circumstances certainly make it look suspicious, and that there is a conflict of interest.

As someone who manages land for a station, I put myself in this situation. I suddenly realized that if I were her, I would look rather poorly perched on this issue if attention was brought to her supervisor. If I acted in this way in an official capacity, my boss would likely not have a kindly reaction.

My 2 cents? Bring it to the specific park's Superintendant. Plead your case to them, presenting the factual information at hand. Demonstrate that the existing caches served the same purpose as the new ones--to educate and bring people to the park in a positive fashion--and then talk about how the Ranger handled the situation. A hand slap might be in order.

Orrrr...the Superinendant may have given full oversight to this Ranger, and the point is moot. But, as users of the park system, your concerns about professionalism and conflict of interest are valid. Any Super would want to know about this poor example of public interaction and outreach.

In Jersey, the parks folk would sa y we aren't getting involved in this BS, get all your caches out of the parks, the AtV folk give us less agita.

Harry , I know a couple of puzzle caches that could use a good archive

Edited December 6, 2013 by Packanack

December 6, 2013

On the other hand, here are some logs for a seldom found mystery cache at Pyramid Mountain:

Archive 07/16/2013
Due to a county event, lack of recent finds, and my inability to remove the cache, I must archive this one.

Found it 07/13/2013

Forgot to log this as I found this last winter while working with the Morris County Park Commission folks while looking to place a new Pyramid Mountain Geocaching program for kids and families. I spoke to the CO, and unfortunately this cache final is too near the location for a new MCP cache, so the CO has graciously agreed to archive this cache to make room.

So, this is a long-term, on-going problem.

Dang - I never even got a chance to find that one (although I bet it is still there). I like how he had to get a smiley on it before killing it :mad: .

3.1k · December 6, 2013

Tis a crappy situation, but decisions that land managers can make, at will. It is their property to manage...

Maybe in Canada parks are privately owned property, but that is not true in this case. Land managers are entrusted with managing public lands. The land does not belong to the land manager.

Yeah, no.

The USFWS, for example, manages "public land". However, they choose to manage it as they interpret their directives. Physical geocaches are not allowed on Refuges or Waterfowl Management Areas, and therefore they are managing the public property within the bounds of Federal Regulations. My boss, and my boss's boss, and their boss's boss can put their boot down entirely at any moment, or possilby remove restrictions so long as it can be allowed under existing CFR.

State Parks are no different. They manage the lands, and they can make decisions to allow, disallow, or make exceptions. That's all.

Back to the issue at hand, it sure seems shady. One doesn't have to venture very far to see how chummy things look between the interested parties. The communication was unfortunately very heavy-handed and poorly conducted. The surrounding circumstances certainly make it look suspicious, and that there is a conflict of interest.

As someone who manages land for a station, I put myself in this situation. I suddenly realized that if I were her, I would look rather poorly perched on this issue if attention was brought to her supervisor. If I acted in this way in an official capacity, my boss would likely not have a kindly reaction.

My 2 cents? Bring it to the specific park's Superintendant. Plead your case to them, presenting the factual information at hand. Demonstrate that the existing caches served the same purpose as the new ones--to educate and bring people to the park in a positive fashion--and then talk about how the Ranger handled the situation. A hand slap might be in order.

Orrrr...the Superinendant may have given full oversight to this Ranger, and the point is moot. But, as users of the park system, your concerns about professionalism and conflict of interest are valid. Any Super would want to know about this poor example of public interaction and outreach.

In Jersey, the parks folk would sa y we aren't getting involved in this BS, get all your caches out of the parks, the AtV folk give us less agita.

Harry , I know a couple of puzzle caches that could use a good archive

Are you sure that's what they'd say?

Especially with a geocaching "insider" as one of their Rangers, I doubt that they would outright ban caches because of this. However, if they did ban caches because of bringing this issue to their attention, it would certainly stick it to the Ranger and President of the local association if their plan ultimately backfires.

Seems like a win-win if someone presents the case to the Superintendant. (Yes, yes, one can argue that seeing a previously open area close to geocaching as a lose/lose. However, the lesser of two evils is making sure that the Ranger and Prez are held accountable for their actions if the parties involved believe that enough of an affront to geocaching goodwill and land manager professionalism has been made.)

10.1k · December 6, 2013

This one had me wondering,. Now I understand...

Archive 12/03/2010
dude--where's my cache?

Needs Archived 12/02/2010

Working with the GSWA and this CO this cache has been moved to a new location to make room for a new cache at the nearby Vernal pond area. A new cache will be listed by ...

December 6, 2013

Caches (not mine) found by NNJC Board members then archived.

http://coord.info/GC38FF8

http://coord.info/GC1ZT3K

December 6, 2013

This one had me wondering,. Now I understand...

Archive 12/03/2010
dude--where's my cache?

Needs Archived 12/02/2010

Working with the GSWA and this CO this cache has been moved to a new location to make room for a new cache at the nearby Vernal pond area. A new cache will be listed by ...

Harry which one was that.

December 6, 2013

Caches (not mine) found by NNJC Board members then archived.

http://coord.info/GC38FF8

http://coord.info/GC1ZT3K

I wonder how they thought those find logs would be received? In their minds were they blessing the caches with their finds as a kind of send off? Kind of like an "Atta Boy." Then the hider would be appeased because the cache was found by giants among men.

Unfortunately, this is how I read it.

"I really like your hide here. I'm going to have to steal it. Go ahead and archive, but before you do let me make sure I get my smiley." <_<

It seems that the persons in charge have decided to promote geocaching in spite of geocachers.

December 6, 2013

Caches (not mine) found by NNJC Board members then archived.

http://coord.info/GC38FF8

http://coord.info/GC1ZT3K

I wonder how they thought those find logs would be received? In their minds were they blessing the caches with their finds as a kind of send off? Kind of like an "Atta Boy." Then the hider would be appeased because the cache was found by giants among men.

Unfortunately, this is how I read it.

"I really like your hide here. I'm going to have to steal it. Go ahead and archive, but before you do let me make sure I get my smiley."

It seems that the persons in charge have decided to promote geocaching in spite of geocachers.

another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC39RKV_mst3k-presents-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

December 6, 2013

another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC39RKV_mst3k-presents-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching :mad:

10.2k · December 6, 2013

another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC39RKV_mst3k-presents-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching

We can only hope the NNJC Official had to sit through a bad 90 minute science fiction film and take notes to solve that puzzle, which it sounds like people have to.

December 6, 2013

another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC39RKV_mst3k-presents-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching

We can only hope the NNJC Official had to sit through a bad 90 minute science fiction film and take notes to solve that puzzle, which it sounds like people have to.

It was pointed out that I may be wrong in my prior post about know new caches being placed in that area after the forced archival...there is this one: http://coord.info/GC46AY2 Sorry for the mistake!

8.3k · December 6, 2013

What astounds me in this whole affair is how calmly all walk to the slaughter. Myself. faced with brazen power grab eviction, would simply refuse to comply and force the land managerNNJC board member file the NA to get my cache out of the way. Of course once the NA was filed I would post a note containing the letter and my comments. Of course I would not be able to hide in the parks any more, but maybe that is not a bad idea. And I certainly not give them the pleasure of seeing my found it log on there caches.

December 6, 2013

When I click go to the referenced cache page, mentioned below, and click on "A cache by Morris County Park Commission ~ NNJC" at the top of the cache page it opens up the profile of "Old Navy". Do most people change this part of the cache page in order to hide under a nom de plume?

another one:

http://www.geocachin...s-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching

We can only hope the NNJC Official had to sit through a bad 90 minute science fiction film and take notes to solve that puzzle, which it sounds like people have to.

It was pointed out that I may be wrong in my prior post about know new caches being placed in that area after the forced archival...there is this one: http://coord.info/GC46AY2 Sorry for the mistake!

2.6k · December 6, 2013

When I click go to the referenced cache page, mentioned below, and click on "A cache by Morris County Park Commission ~ NNJC" at the top of the cache page it opens up the profile of "Old Navy". Do most people change this part of the cache page in order to hide under a nom de plume?

I would not say "most", but it is certainly not unusual.

December 6, 2013

Why would a hider want to disguise their identity on the cache page?

When I click go to the referenced cache page, mentioned below, and click on "A cache by Morris County Park Commission ~ NNJC" at the top of the cache page it opens up the profile of "Old Navy". Do most people change this part of the cache page in order to hide under a nom de plume?

I would not say "most", but it is certainly not unusual.

10.2k · December 6, 2013

another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC39RKV_mst3k-presents-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching

We can only hope the NNJC Official had to sit through a bad 90 minute science fiction film and take notes to solve that puzzle, which it sounds like people have to.

It was pointed out that I may be wrong in my prior post about know new caches being placed in that area after the forced archival...there is this one: http://coord.info/GC46AY2 Sorry for the mistake!

And GC46AY2 couldn't have been moved 16 feet to make it 529 feet away?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

December 6, 2013

Is Groundspeak really going to get involved in a nasty situation with someone deemed as World Wide Geocacher of the month ~ September 2013?

14k · December 6, 2013

another one:

http://www.geocachin...s-final-justice

A Mystery Science Theater Cache.

No park-related caches have been hidden there since so I'm not sure why there was a rush to bully the cacher to archive his puzzle FIVE months ago. The CO of that cache only has a handful of hides, but I had done one of his others. Nice way to turn off new cachers/hiders from geocaching

We can only hope the NNJC Official had to sit through a bad 90 minute science fiction film and take notes to solve that puzzle, which it sounds like people have to.

That's what PAF networks are for

15.3k · December 6, 2013

FWIW, once upon a time, the guidelines included the sentence: "The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

Ah, the good ol' days. Anyway...

Why would a hider want to disguise their identity on the cache page?

Sometimes, a cache is created by multiple people. It can be owned by only one account, but the "Cache Placed By" field can include everyone's account names.

Sometimes, a cache is adopted, and the "Cache Placed By" field is updated to give credit both to the original owner and to the adopted owner. And sometimes, the "Cache Placed By" field remains unchanged, giving credit to the original owner while linking to the adopted owner.

Sometimes, it's part of the theme of the cache, or it's part of the puzzle, or it's even a subtle hint about how/where the cache is hidden.

Sometimes, a park or open space district sponsors a series, but arranges for local geocachers to own/maintain the actual caches. The series I'm most familiar with uses a district account to actually own them, and the local volunteers watch the listings and exchange email with the district employee as needed. But I suppose the caches could be owned by the local volunteers instead, and the "Cache Placed By" field could be updated to reflect the "official" nature of the geocaches.

And I'm sure there are other reasons I've missed.

December 7, 2013

Is Groundspeak really going to get involved in a nasty situation with someone deemed as World Wide Geocacher of the month ~ September 2013?

Impeach.

</sarcasm font>

Edited December 7, 2013 by Team Bayberry

December 7, 2013

Is Groundspeak really going to get involved in a nasty situation with someone deemed as World Wide Geocacher of the month ~ September 2013?

Impeach.

It's quite likely that Groundspeak will not get involved in this nasty situation given the nature of it, however, it's unfortunate that this is the precedence set by a cacher who is held in such a high regard (?) throughout the entire community.

4.4k · December 7, 2013

... who is held in such a high regard (?) throughout the entire community.

Ahem!

I never had any chance to vote for this world-wide-whatever title... Is this like the World Series, really only a local thing?

December 7, 2013

... who is held in such a high regard (?) throughout the entire community.

Ahem!

I never had any chance to vote for this world-wide-whatever title... Is this like the World Series, really only a local thing?

If I'm not mistaken.....it's a global thing.

http://blog.geocaching.com/category/geocachers-care/geocacher-of-the-month/

Geocache Archive Requests

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment