Jump to content

Geocache Archive Requests


Recommended Posts

I think this is where the Reviewer community will probably start taking a closer look at cache requests that must be published by a certain date. If they correlate the date of publication and day of event it'll be a simple conclusion. Event caches by GS rules "should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together geocachers for an organized geocache search." It's a matter of interpretation as to motive, but if you're having an event and 30 caches must be published on that date and in close proximity to the event, well.....

 

Last CTTS I went to I skipped the group hike and had a great time at the Krough's catching up with geo-friends I hadn't seen for a while. Was a very rewarding 1 cache for the day.

 

Around here the reviewers will publish caches put out for an event the night before. This way people can load their units and cache on the way to the event if they want to, and can socialize while at the event.

 

 

Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

If this specific location has such great historical significance, there is probably a marker or sign there? Sounds like a great opportunity for an offset multi, and the virtual first stage won't have a proximity issue with the existing caches.

I would think that someone with the experience that the two protagonists have would be aware of that option.

 

I do hope Reviewers are reading these posts. I've said it before, but why couldn't these cachers/Land Managers simply collaborate with experienced and seasoned cachers. Amazed at the arrogance.

 

It's hard to tell from the outside if this behavior is simply a lack of awareness of the consequences of this heavy handed action, or arrogance. Either way it's poor behavior and hopefully will not continue beyond this. But I do not think that the volunteer reviewers are responsible for making members of the community play nice with each other. This is something that has to be worked out locally. But it isn't a trend that any of us want to see continue elsewhere either.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

 

The first thing stated by Rangr Dave is that this is just a game. But after this, they go on to say how important it is to archive someone elses cache so that new caches can be placed that are "educational" in some way. They also state that quality needs to rein over quantity. Is there a contradiction in this one paragraph? Doesn't sound like Rangr Dave thinks this a game at all...

 

I admit that i'm all for quality over quantity myself but that doesn't mean i have the right to bully others into thinking and caching the way i choose. This just flat out stinks!

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

Make it a multi...

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

Make it a multi...

 

Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

Make it a multi...

 

Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.

I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected.

Link to comment

People make mistakes, this isn't the US government here, these are our friends and caching companions.

CR, this is not your community nor your friends. Get over yourself, you are acting like you have a horse in this race.

I think that the point has been made that we all have a horse in this race, because forced archiving could happen anywhere. So it is even better when those who don't directly have a horse in the race stand up and say, "Hey, this is heavy-handed. Big-wigs wearing two hats are throwing their weight around, forcing out existing caches to make way for caches of their own choosing. You or I could be next."

 

Agree or disagree, but it's crucial to have a robust debate about these policy issues.

 

The point of my comment was not to say that this is something that affects all of us. It was directed specifically at the poster who I quoted who I felt was out of line with his rants. But as usual in these forums, some of the posters here who seem to have little else to do blew it way out of proportion. Which is why many people stay away from these discussion forums. There, have at it. You are all SO easy to bait signalsmile.gif

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

I am all for quality over quantity.

Is there a contradiction in this one paragraph?

I haven't reread the whole thread, so I could be wrong. Didn't the park in question force the archival of about half a dozen caches, to make room for six times that number? That certainly does not fit the "quality over quantity" profile Rangr Dave is espousing.

Link to comment

I guess I'll never understand the concept of 'disposable' caches. Yeah, I know there are a lot of cachers who hide caches and never maintain them. Three months is all that GS requires. I hide my caches to last as long as possible. They may not get found too often, but they are still there.

Others seems to recycle caches about every two years. Most of the locals have found it. Archive and hide new ones. Always seemed a bit strange to me. I've enjoyed that park. Do I really want to go back and seek new ones?

Strange enough when one hosts another event at a site. Archive all the old ones, and put out new ones. Were the old ones not special? I guess not. See Camp Jefferson. Camping event! Hide lots of caches. Okay. Another camping event two years later. Archive all of the event owners caches, and hide a new set. They weren't good enough to be permanent caches? Disposable? Or is it all about the numbers?

That seems to happen a lot with a certain CO's caches. Event or not. Maintenance does not seem to be important either.

Ah. I don't understand this concept. I guess if one wants to archive all of one's caches in an area to hide new ones, that is the CO's prerogative. (Though I will never understand it.) But deciding that other CO's caches have passed their shelf date and need to be archived for a new power trail series to coincide with an event? Reprehensible!

But, do you know what I find worse? (And I was not aware of this.) A local cacher worked with many cachers to set out three Checkpoint Challenge series. North, Central and South Jersey. A series of 26 caches each (one for each letter of the alphabet.) Find all 26, and go for the final. (Great series! We have done the NJCC and the CJCC series. They were great!) CO for the series has left the state. Puppet account has taken over the finals. "Oh. This interferes with our Griggstown Power Trail. To perdition with the 27 COs who worked to make this series! It's in our way!"

It's as if you read my mind in writing this post :laughing: It's a shame to see the CJCC final and other good caches go to squeeze 37 caches in on a grid system. When caches are placed in order to fit them exactly 528 feet apart, I really can't see how they are placed to highlight specific features of a park. What would have been wrong with placing 10, or even 5 new caches in the park for the event? The Griggstown preserve in particular, is not all that large, so it's kind of odd to see that many caches jammed in there.

 

Of course individual CO's can do what they want with their own caches, and the caching placements in parks are ultimately under the control of the land managers, but if the purpose of a geo-trail is to highlight a park and it's natural and cultural features, I don't see how that type of saturation is serving the purpose. Instead of seeing the park and it's beauty you are just staring down at your GPS the whole time.

 

I haven't reread the whole thread, so I could be wrong. Didn't the park in question force the archival of about half a dozen caches, to make room for six times that number? That certainly does not fit the "quality over quantity" profile Rangr Dave is espousing.

Yes, In the one case (Griggstown), a small number of caches (I believe four) -- some of which had been in place for six years -- were archived to make way for thirty-seven new ones. The new caches block any possible new placements in that preserve, although there is an adjacent preserve/park of almost the same size that has only ONE cache in it.

Edited by trowel32
Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?
Make it a multi...
Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.
I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected.

That is correct; making it a virtual stage of a multi allows you to take someone to a location that already has a cache at it, show them when you want, explain what you want and does not disrupt the current cache.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

 

The first thing stated by Rangr Dave is that this is just a game. But after this, they go on to say how important it is to archive someone elses cache so that new caches can be placed that are "educational" in some way. They also state that quality needs to rein over quantity. Is there a contradiction in this one paragraph? Doesn't sound like Rangr Dave thinks this a game at all...

 

I admit that i'm all for quality over quantity myself but that doesn't mean i have the right to bully others into thinking and caching the way i choose. This just flat out stinks!

 

Ranger Dave is speaking about quality over quantity? Really? Was that demonstrated in griggstown? I wonder what the power circle in this group considers quality. Thirty some odd traditionals that are all the same size/container/hide? Follow it up with one of the group's most prolific members insisting that everyone give these caches favorite points....and I suppose you have what may appear to be quality hidden behind the "suggested" favorite points.

 

I suppose thirty some odd cookie cutter hides is WAY higher quality than a chirp cache and a large mortar ammo can. Just like others have said....it's numbers, that's it. What a shame.

 

First the geo trail in central Jersey, followed by this debacle in north Jersey. I suppose south Jersey should get ready for this as well....

 

In fact, I should probably go ahead and start archiving my caches now.....the six wherigos and thirty some puzzles I have in SJ stand no chance against a "quality" geo trail of "educational" traditionals.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?
Make it a multi...
Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.
I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected.

That is correct; making it a virtual stage of a multi allows you to take someone to a location that already has a cache at it, show them when you want, explain what you want and does not disrupt the current cache.

 

Oh yes, i know and wholeheartedly agree with OReviewer's idea.

 

However, and i'm speculating of course, this probably wouldn't work since the point of the new caches is most likely to attract as many cachers as possible. Rangr Dave and others involved with their project realize that many, maybe even most, cachers don't want to spend the time needed on multis and puzzles just to get one smiley. For them, placing traditionals is the way to go since they are more popular.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

 

The first thing stated by Rangr Dave is that this is just a game. But after this, they go on to say how important it is to archive someone elses cache so that new caches can be placed that are "educational" in some way. They also state that quality needs to rein over quantity. Is there a contradiction in this one paragraph? Doesn't sound like Rangr Dave thinks this a game at all...

 

I admit that i'm all for quality over quantity myself but that doesn't mean i have the right to bully others into thinking and caching the way i choose. This just flat out stinks!

 

Ranger Dave is speaking about quality over quantity? Really? Was that demonstrated in griggstown? I wonder what the power circle in this group considers quality. Thirty some odd traditionals that are all the same size/container/hide? Follow it up with one of the group's most prolific members insisting that everyone give these caches favorite points....and I suppose you have what may appear to be quality hidden behind the "suggested" favorite points.

 

I suppose thirty some odd cookie cutter hides is WAY higher quality than a chirp cache and a large mortar ammo can. Just like others have said....it's numbers, that's it. What a shame.

 

First the geo trail in central Jersey, followed by this debacle in north Jersey. I suppose south Jersey should get ready for this as well....

 

In fact, I should probably go ahead and start archiving my caches now.....the six wherigos and thirty some puzzles I have in SJ stand no chance against a "quality" geo trail of "educational" traditionals.

 

If you can maintain your caches and wish to keep them. Please don't archive them because of this thread. That would defeat the entire purpose of why I raised the issue.

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

 

The first thing stated by Rangr Dave is that this is just a game. But after this, they go on to say how important it is to archive someone elses cache so that new caches can be placed that are "educational" in some way. They also state that quality needs to rein over quantity. Is there a contradiction in this one paragraph? Doesn't sound like Rangr Dave thinks this a game at all...

 

I admit that i'm all for quality over quantity myself but that doesn't mean i have the right to bully others into thinking and caching the way i choose. This just flat out stinks!

 

Ranger Dave is speaking about quality over quantity? Really? Was that demonstrated in griggstown? I wonder what the power circle in this group considers quality. Thirty some odd traditionals that are all the same size/container/hide? Follow it up with one of the group's most prolific members insisting that everyone give these caches favorite points....and I suppose you have what may appear to be quality hidden behind the "suggested" favorite points.

 

I suppose thirty some odd cookie cutter hides is WAY higher quality than a chirp cache and a large mortar ammo can. Just like others have said....it's numbers, that's it. What a shame.

 

First the geo trail in central Jersey, followed by this debacle in north Jersey. I suppose south Jersey should get ready for this as well....

 

In fact, I should probably go ahead and start archiving my caches now.....the six wherigos and thirty some puzzles I have in SJ stand no chance against a "quality" geo trail of "educational" traditionals.

 

If you can maintain your caches and wish to keep them. Please don't archive them because of this thread. That would defeat the entire purpose of why I raised the issue.

 

Don't fret, WNC.....the last paragraph of my post was in jest. I very rarely archive caches, but I will likely not place anything else in Jersey anytime soon. So long as there's a looming threat of "forced archival" by the kings and queens of NJ geocaching, I suppose we'll need to watch where we step.

Link to comment
Oh yes, i know and wholeheartedly agree with OReviewer's idea.

 

However, and i'm speculating of course, this probably wouldn't work since the point of the new caches is most likely to attract as many cachers as possible. Rangr Dave and others involved with their project realize that many, maybe even most, cachers don't want to spend the time needed on multis and puzzles just to get one smiley. For them, placing traditionals is the way to go since they are more popular.

Actually, the multi set up this way is actually the most optimal for those numbers hunters as they aren't going out of their way (or not very much) since the starting location is a place they are already going for the traditional cache.

 

FWIW and IMHO, a good informational training geotrail should have a combination of many cache types; but that's just me. Also, I agree with what many said earlier, I got to events for the people, not the caches placed. For the last 10 years, we've held a pot-luck, family type event at the same park. We've run between 50-100+ attended logs on each one of them with the average attended log being about 3 people. The hosts have never put out a cache for this and we still have consistently good attendance for this. There is always some turn over in the park (or very close by). No one in the area feels a need to carpet bomb the area with caches every year or churn the ones that are there. In 10 years of holding it, I've never heard a single complaint about cache numbers.

 

That said, as a reviewer, I've seen many comments about "putting out these 6 parking lot caches or someone won't come to my McEvent".

Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?
Make it a multi...
Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.
I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected.

That is correct; making it a virtual stage of a multi allows you to take someone to a location that already has a cache at it, show them when you want, explain what you want and does not disrupt the current cache.

 

That is correct, and allows the caches to continu to be listed on Geocaching.com. I also mentioned earlier that the cache owner could have been given the option to list the caches on another Geocaching website. That would still suck, of course, but hey, it's better than "you must archive these caches by 11/28/13, and if not removed, they become property of the State park on 1/1/13.

 

I figured if the two Rangers don't know there are other Geoaching sites, they must know about Letterboxing, right? This is a huge park. Nope, there is only 1 letterbox in Kittatinny Valley State Park! 1 Letterbox, and 200 Geocaches. I guess Letterboxing isn't very popular in Northern New Jersey.

 

OK, enough babbling. Point being at least 2 viable options to forced archival have been presented. Wherigo, anyone? :P

Link to comment

OK, enough babbling. Point being at least 2 viable options to forced archival have been presented. Wherigo, anyone? :P

 

In my area, I would be more likely to visit a "geotrail" if the historical site had been used for a Wherigo or letterbox hybrid -- but even an offset multi that required visitors to use historical information would have been more educational than a traditional. Adding an earthcache about the park's geology would have also been educational, if it has not already been done. As you point out, there are many ways of achieving a goal that do not include removing existing caches.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment
Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?
Make it a multi...
Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.
I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected.

That is correct; making it a virtual stage of a multi allows you to take someone to a location that already has a cache at it, show them when you want, explain what you want and does not disrupt the current cache.

 

That is correct, and allows the caches to continu to be listed on Geocaching.com. I also mentioned earlier that the cache owner could have been given the option to list the caches on another Geocaching website. That would still suck, of course, but hey, it's better than "you must archive these caches by 11/28/13, and if not removed, they become property of the State park on 1/1/13.

 

I figured if the two Rangers don't know there are other Geoaching sites, they must know about Letterboxing, right? This is a huge park. Nope, there is only 1 letterbox in Kittatinny Valley State Park! 1 Letterbox, and 200 Geocaches. I guess Letterboxing isn't very popular in Northern New Jersey.

 

OK, enough babbling. Point being at least 2 viable options to forced archival have been presented. Wherigo, anyone? :P

 

OoOoOo! What about a power trail of wherigos?!

 

In all seriousness though, you could place one multi, puzzle OR Wherigo that brings you to EVERY educational, historic spot in the park and hide one noninvasive cache for the final.

 

Seriously, if these folks want an educational "trail" of caches....they can use Wherigo as the tool for that instead of many caches. Hell, if it'll stop the bullying....I'll even create the cartridge!

 

Sorry, just day dreaming here. I'm sure it will just be another run of the mill geotrail.

Link to comment

OoOoOo! What about a power trail of wherigos?!

 

In all seriousness though, you could place one multi, puzzle OR Wherigo that brings you to EVERY educational, historic spot in the park and hide one noninvasive cache for the final.

 

Seriously, if these folks want an educational "trail" of caches....they can use Wherigo as the tool for that instead of many caches. Hell, if it'll stop the bullying....I'll even create the cartridge!

 

Sorry, just day dreaming here. I'm sure it will just be another run of the mill geotrail.

 

I have done a trail of wherigos before. Actually, it used one Wherigo cartridge that took you to several other caches that were listed as wherigos. Where there is a will, there is a way. The problem here seems to be that there was no will to do anything but archive.

Link to comment

OoOoOo! What about a power trail of wherigos?!

 

In all seriousness though, you could place one multi, puzzle OR Wherigo that brings you to EVERY educational, historic spot in the park and hide one noninvasive cache for the final.

 

Seriously, if these folks want an educational "trail" of caches....they can use Wherigo as the tool for that instead of many caches. Hell, if it'll stop the bullying....I'll even create the cartridge!

 

Sorry, just day dreaming here. I'm sure it will just be another run of the mill geotrail.

 

I have done a trail of wherigos before. Actually, it used one Wherigo cartridge that took you to several other caches that were listed as wherigos. Where there is a will, there is a way. The problem here seems to be that there was no will to do anything but archive.

 

I've only ever heard myths and legends of Wherigo power trails. One day....one day

 

The problem here is that they don't want to share the park with other geocachers, otherwise they would have worked around these caches. It's my assumption that much like the griggstown situation, they will jam pack the area to the brim.....every 528 feet.

Link to comment

Looks like the FB moderator over at NNJC has begun a purge of cachers/members FB posts. As in, "we don't like them so we're going to erase any trace they existed". Is it me or does this smell really bad? Is there any recourse Groundspeak can initiate to censure a local club for this type of behavior? Honestly; censorship, banning, purging.... sounds tyrannical and not within the guidelines of a "community" activity.

Link to comment

This really got my goat when I got the notices about the Griggstown caches and the event notice. This was not the way to promote geocaching. I really tried to figure out why nikcap would archive his caches and the CJCC was being taken away. The event annoyed me even more. I live ~.5 miles away from Griggstown and did not attend the event or nor will I participate in finding the caches there. The event goes against the guidelines of holding a cache event. It is rubbish.

 

Over the last few days of reading all these posts and reflecting on previous events, another event and geotrail came to mind which the same situation happened to another local geocacher with NNJC. This preceded Griggstown. The Dukes Farm Geotrail was established with NNJC and they had a "Meet and Greet"...("laser"). The local cacher was contacted to archive his cache and really felt he was bullied. I verified this with the cacher.

 

So...Two points make a line. A third verifies it.

Link to comment

This really got my goat when I got the notices about the Griggstown caches and the event notice. This was not the way to promote geocaching. I really tried to figure out why nikcap would archive his caches and the CJCC was being taken away. The event annoyed me even more. I live ~.5 miles away from Griggstown and did not attend the event or nor will I participate in finding the caches there. The event goes against the guidelines of holding a cache event. It is rubbish.

 

Over the last few days of reading all these posts and reflecting on previous events, another event and geotrail came to mind which the same situation happened to another local geocacher with NNJC. This preceded Griggstown. The Dukes Farm Geotrail was established with NNJC and they had a "Meet and Greet"...("laser"). The local cacher was contacted to archive his cache and really felt he was bullied. I verified this with the cacher.

 

So...Two points make a line. A third verifies it.

Ah yes - I forgot about that cache archival. :ph34r: The cache in question that was archived for the Duke Farms Geotrail was the first and only cache in that park until that geotrail came along. It was the cache that introuduced me to the park when it first became open to the public and I had a great time hiking around there with a group of central NJ geocacher buddies in the snow for miles to find the ONE cache there.

 

This is the archived listing: http://coord.info/GC2AEHW It's not obvious what happened from the listing, but the "Duke Farms Foundation" stated that the area was "closed" and the cache should be removed and then a few weeks later the geotrail came out with caches in the same area. I remember that the CO was pretty upset about it but don't remember if the discussion was on here, on the central jersey geocaching site, or somewhere else...

Link to comment
This is the archived listing: http://coord.info/GC2AEHW It's not obvious what happened from the listing, but the "Duke Farms Foundation" stated that the area was "closed" and the cache should be removed and then a few weeks later the geotrail came out with caches in the same area.

The closest cache, is about 0.2 miles away on a different trail and none were put on the trail or in the area. I think that archival might have been legit, at least by the e-mail from the park.

Link to comment
This is the archived listing: http://coord.info/GC2AEHW It's not obvious what happened from the listing, but the "Duke Farms Foundation" stated that the area was "closed" and the cache should be removed and then a few weeks later the geotrail came out with caches in the same area.

The closest cache, is about 0.2 miles away on a different trail and none were put on the trail or in the area. I think that archival might have been legit, at least by the e-mail from the park.

Yeah, it does look like a legitimate archival in the listing and there doesn't seem to be a cache in the exact location, although I'm pretty sure the area it is in is still open to the public, but I do recall hearing some funny business regarding the archival, but can't remember where. I'm curious who actually controls the "Duke Farms Foundation" account though. The timing is kind of odd though with the removal request and the geotrail publication within a few weeks of one another.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, I believe there were two to three other caches there that were hidden after the one referenced above and before the geotrail - they were presumably also archived for the geotrail but I think they were actually put out by the "Duke Farms Foundation" or some variation of that account. I'm fairly certain one was in the Hay Barn where the current geotrail Hay Barn cache is. I never found them as they sounded like kind of lame hides that were out in the open, so I don't have a record of them.

 

Oh wait, here: http://coord.info/GC2YAP1 http://coord.info/GC2YAP8 http://coord.info/GC2YAPE

One with bad coordinates and the other two hidden so poorly that they were muggled. Then they archived their own caches to hide new ones in less than a year :rolleyes:

Edited by trowel32
Link to comment

How about we stop the <redacted>* bashing and get back on topic.

I think that is the topic. Unless I completely misread the OP. :P

Though, I get what you are saying. I think this would be a perfectly relavent thread, if the name of the orginazation in question, along with geological references, were redacted, as indicated above. As cooler heads have mentioned, we, as a global community, should be discussing the behaviors involved, rather than the individuals involved. Those behaviors were, in my opinion, intolerable.

 

The behavior is indeed the issue here. I don't know the name of the organization and know none of those involved but its the " its my ball and I'm going to go home and take it with me " approach....I think the existing caches should remain, period. I can at least understand TPTB position that in doing so we may win the moral high ground but lose everything else ( the park for geocaching ).....I'm guessing, though, in a case of hardball that land manager is going to want caches in that park.

 

You're not going to lose the park for Geocaching when the land manager is a 3,300 find Geocacher. Trust me on that one. :o

 

I don't think she technically would be the considered land manager. I'd reserve that title for the park superintendent or the NJ DEP, not a park employee. If the superintendent or the DEP decided no geocaches tomorrow, there is little that this 3,300 find geocacher could do about it.

 

Rangr Dave posted a note for XMas Presents for Sue&Barry (Unknown Cache) at 11/26/2013

 

Log Date: 11/26/2013

First off lets remember that this is indeed a game, one with over 12,000 game pieces throughout this state alone. If a few have to be archived so that others may be placed to educate a cacher on the historical, environmental, or geological significance of an area so be it. I am all for quality over quantity.

 

Secondly, the "someone" that you speak of is one of the land managers for this park. The request is being made so that (as stated in the request) an official interpretive geo-trail can be installed in the park. The cache that is requested to be archived is within .1 mile of an area that has great historical significance to the park. What greater way to bring someone there and educate them than through a cache?

 

On a personal note, this archive request is being made by someone that has made great contributions to the sport of geocaching, through hours of outreach, township meetings, planning and holding events, and personally conducting monthly introduction to geocaching classes where she has introduced both individuals and families to caching. So understand that this archive request was made with the pure intent of creating a greater caching experience for all.

 

The hubris and arrogance in that statement is simply incredible.

Link to comment

OReviewer...I can understand what you see on maps but I did verify with the CO of how it was handled with the archiving "request" of their cache prior to posting here. I knew of the incident and wanted to make sure I had it right in the sense of how caches are being removed to create geo-trails by a certain group of individuals. My point is that this is not a "ohhh..we took a misstep." We know this to be a "third offense" which shows a pattern. A very unfavorable pattern that none to many in this forum care for.

Link to comment

This really got my goat when I got the notices about the Griggstown caches and the event notice. This was not the way to promote geocaching. I really tried to figure out why nikcap would archive his caches and the CJCC was being taken away. The event annoyed me even more. I live ~.5 miles away from Griggstown and did not attend the event or nor will I participate in finding the caches there. The event goes against the guidelines of holding a cache event. It is rubbish.

 

Over the last few days of reading all these posts and reflecting on previous events, another event and geotrail came to mind which the same situation happened to another local geocacher with NNJC. This preceded Griggstown. The Dukes Farm Geotrail was established with NNJC and they had a "Meet and Greet"...("laser"). The local cacher was contacted to archive his cache and really felt he was bullied. I verified this with the cacher.

 

So...Two points make a line. A third verifies it.

 

nikcap (known for many years by a different name :P) has responded here, I believe on page 2. I've found it, and will quote below:

 

Three of my caches were victim to archival for the Geo-Trail placed in Griggstown, This was my believe too. While I did have permission from the parks department and collaborated on the cache page write ups with the park manager, when the time came to create the Geo-Trail, I was informed that my caches had to go after living there for happily for 6 years.

 

I'm under the impression now that there is a hidden agenda, on top of a lot of unsavory and childish behaviors going on with that group.

At this point, I really regret that I gave into the archive request so easily without a proper discussion with the land manager again. While ultimately, archiving my caches was best for me, it wasn't best for the community and I apologies to my local communities for setting this precedent

 

I buy that. They were there for 6 years, and it was "best for him" to archive them. He didn't know that was the tip of the iceberg, and plans were in the works to do something similar all over New Jersey.

 

In addition to that, by agreeing to archive initially, he would not have received an incredibly arrogant "archive or else" Needs archived log, nor an equally incredibly arrogant "archive or else" note posted by a different Ranger.

Link to comment

...

nikcap (known for many years by a different name :P) has responded here, I believe on page 2. I've found it, and will quote below:

 

.... I honestly feel that if this was for the greater good of geocaching the land manager would work to keep the current caches (or finding a way to incorporate them in).

Three of my caches were victim to archival for the Geo-Trail placed in Griggstown, This was my believe too. While I did have permission from the parks department and collaborated on the cache page write ups with the park manager, when the time came to create the Geo-Trail, I was informed that my caches had to go after living there for happily for 6 years.

 

I'm under the impression now that there is a hidden agenda, on top of a lot of unsavory and childish behaviors going on with that group.

At this point, I really regret that I gave into the archive request so easily without a proper discussion with the land manager again. While ultimately, archiving my caches was best for me, it wasn't best for the community and I apologies to my local communities for setting this precedent

 

I buy that. They were there for 6 years, and it was "best for him" to archive them. He didn't know that was the tip of the iceberg, and plans were in the works to do something similar all over New Jersey.

 

In addition to that, by agreeing to archive initially, he would not have received an incredibly arrogant "archive or else" Needs archived log, nor an equally incredibly arrogant "archive or else" note posted by a different Ranger.

 

Last night I spoke with the president of NNJC regarding the situation going on. Unsurprising, this is a mix of three or four different issues boiling up together. I am hesitant comment on the specific incident that spawned this topic as I still don't know that true facts about what happened, but my gut feeling is there is a power play going on.

 

As for my caches and the Central Jersey Checkpoint Challenge, I finally spoke with the land manager. She confirmed that is was her's and the parks decision to have all caches that were NOT part of the Geo-Trail removed. I didn't go into why this was was their opinion or how they arrived to it, rather, I wanted to open a dialog with them to recreate some Checkpoint caches for version 2 of the challenge.

Link to comment

I am not from the area, but if I were, I would boycott the event and these caches on principle. The land manager may have the final say, but that doesn't make what she's doing right. It's sad how such a small amount of "power" can go to someone's head and lead them to abuse it. Several posters have pointed out that the "other side" of this story hasn't been told, that group's president or the land manager haven't come and stated their case so we don't really KNOW the whole situation....but what could they possibly say that would make this okay? I'm not at all surprised that they haven't made an appearance in this thread, because there's really no defense for how they handled this situation.

 

If I lived in the area and was more directly affected by this, I probably would go over this ranger's head and alert whoever supervises her to how she is abusing her position and causing conflict that could negatively effect the park. Yes, there is the risk of "winning the battle and losing the war", but honestly, I'd rather lose the entire park than let a select few dictate what geocaches will be allowed there. Maybe that's selfish. But bowing down to this type of bullying out of fear doesn't seem right to me either.

 

It almost feels like a mob shakedown, when they charge your for "protection" but they're the ones you need protecting from. Except there wasn't even the pretense of a choice in this situation, it was just "archive your cache, or I'll use my position to archive it for you."

Link to comment

I am not from the area, but if I were, I would boycott the event and these caches on principle. The land manager may have the final say, but that doesn't make what she's doing right. It's sad how such a small amount of "power" can go to someone's head and lead them to abuse it. Several posters have pointed out that the "other side" of this story hasn't been told, that group's president or the land manager haven't come and stated their case so we don't really KNOW the whole situation....but what could they possibly say that would make this okay? I'm not at all surprised that they haven't made an appearance in this thread, because there's really no defense for how they handled this situation.

 

If I lived in the area and was more directly affected by this, I probably would go over this ranger's head and alert whoever supervises her to how she is abusing her position and causing conflict that could negatively effect the park. Yes, there is the risk of "winning the battle and losing the war", but honestly, I'd rather lose the entire park than let a select few dictate what geocaches will be allowed there. Maybe that's selfish. But bowing down to this type of bullying out of fear doesn't seem right to me either.

 

It almost feels like a mob shakedown, when they charge your for "protection" but they're the ones you need protecting from. Except there wasn't even the pretense of a choice in this situation, it was just "archive your cache, or I'll use my position to archive it for you."

 

Good post that pretty much states my thinking on this!

 

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.

Link to comment

I was allowed to post the following on the NNJC FB page.

I post this here for those that are not members.

I wish to thank those in this forum for your support.

 

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

Hello! Is this mic on?

 

I am here to begin reconciliation.

 

A significant amount of angst has been created in my heart, in NNJC members, amongst the NNJC board, the lives of KVSP land managers, the New Jersey State Park leadership and the worldwide geocaching community since I first received the original request to consider archiving some of my geocaches in KVSP (NJ) in October. My goal when I created the original Groundspeak post was transparency. That was all.

 

I am using this forum to begin some reconciliation in the greater New Jersey geocaching community at this time.

 

I reached out to the NNJC President and the following was received by him as good suggestions. I place the suggestions here for the consideration of other geocaching clubs.

 

I suggested transparency.

 

With the understanding that land managers are our friends, for they allow geocaching in the parks they manage, and the assumption that these land managers may contact NNJC in the future for a variety of requests.

 

In the future, if NNJC is contacted by a state park to archive geocaches, I suggested that NNJC ensure transparency of the nature of the request to the larger local geocaching community.

 

As NNJC represents the geocaching community, NNJC representatives should first ask the land manager "is archiving of an existing geocache necessary." Many alternatives to archiving exist. As this is not a local issue alone, I have promised to send NNJC the extremely helpful suggestions that were made by Keystone and OReviewer as to how they have been able to develop a method to keep existing geocaches in place and allow the placement of geocaches in state parks elsewhere.

 

In the event that these caches are to be archived, I suggested to NNJC that they consider lobbying the land managers to maintain existing caches as they are. This allows New Jersey geocachers an opportunity to maintain the traditional individual ownership model.

 

In the event that existing geocaches are to be replaced for some reason, such as a State park initiated geotrail, I strongly suggested that the local geocachers with caches already in the park be contacted to create the potential geotrail for the park. Additionally, a transparent opportunity should be created for other local geocachers to volunteer to participate in the placement of new geocaches in these parks.

 

In addition, to avoid ill feelings, I suggested NNJC ensure they are outwardly transparent to the entire local geocaching community when they are supporting any archival requests.

 

As geocaching is an ever changing sport, I also recommended transparency as it relates NNJC lobbying activities with their membership. If NNJC is aware of potential changes in state policy regarding geocaching policies, the NNJC community should be consulted to determine NNJC's official position.

 

As an organization, NNJC represents hundreds of geocachers in the northern New Jersey geocaching community. Consequently, NNJC is a steward of the geocaching game in this community. As a steward, comes trust. With trust comes accountability. Accountability is gained through transparency of actions.

 

Play nice. It's our game. We make the rules together.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to post in this forum.

Link to comment

It would be great to see the involved parties come to some sort of understanding and I think you're the bigger person for making the first step in that direction.

 

One thing I would change about that letter is the use of the word 'transparency'. I know it's used alot, but by itself, it's kind of vague and open to interpretation. Instead, I would get really specific about 1) how you feel and 2) what you would like them to do.

 

If you do end up sitting down with them in person, I would start off by acknowledging the positive: all the volunteer hours and effort they've put into this project and how they probably thought they were doing what was best for their community. I would then discuss how their actions made you feel, followed by specific requests.

 

Non-violent communication may be very helpful in this situation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBGlF7-MPFI

 

Good luck!

Link to comment

It would be great to see the involved parties come to some sort of understanding and I think you're the bigger person for making the first step in that direction.

 

One thing I would change about that letter is the use of the word 'transparency'. I know it's used alot, but by itself, it's kind of vague and open to interpretation. Instead, I would get really specific about 1) how you feel and 2) what you would like them to do.

 

If you do end up sitting down with them in person, I would start off by acknowledging the positive: all the volunteer hours and effort they've put into this project and how they probably thought they were doing what was best for their community. I would then discuss how their actions made you feel, followed by specific requests.

 

Non-violent communication may be very helpful in this situation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBGlF7-MPFI

 

Good luck!

Thanks for the good wishes and advice.

Since WNC post requesting reconciliation very little real progress has been made.

The NNJC board voted to allow one member back from banishment. The other member has not been re-instated. Remember, one of these was blocked for simply posting this very thread on the NNJC FB page as a way to communicate a direction and policy NNJC were adopting and defending. His freedom of expression was removed to eliminate any contrary perspective.

 

Not sure what the next steps will be or what direction NNJC will take with this. I am deeply disappointing and discouraged this has gone on for as long as it has. We were hoping that open and collaborative communications would have resolved this sooner. Unfortunately, however, there is a core group that will do what they want at the risk of perpetuating a schism and advancing a policy which has been determined to be counter-productive.

 

I would advocate that the caches being considered for publication to coincide with the 2 events be evaluated and published 1 day after the day of the event. This would send a clear message that their behavior, attitude and direction is not in-line with what Geocaching is all about. There's been enough chatter on this forum and on the 2 NNJC FB pages that this would suck but would be appropriate. Secondly, it would support the GC rule that caches placed for the purpose of attracting people to an event is not permitted. There are enough caches in that park (200+) that would satisfy most seekers.

 

This is may be initially construed as an unpopular position but a realistic way to convey that what NNJC is advocating, pursuing and mandating to be critically evaluated and allow for their membership - not just the board - to debate and vote.

Edited by CondorTrax
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

This is may be initially construed as an unpopular position but a realistic way to convey that what NNJC is advocating, pursuing and mandating to be critically evaluated and allow for their membership - not just the board - to debate and vote.

 

Out of curiosity, when is the next opportunity to elect/select a new board?

Link to comment

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.

I saw a comment that they've been preparing a response but have been too busy...

Link to comment

This is may be initially construed as an unpopular position but a realistic way to convey that what NNJC is advocating, pursuing and mandating to be critically evaluated and allow for their membership - not just the board - to debate and vote.

 

Out of curiosity, when is the next opportunity to elect/select a new board?

Not sure. When my wife was on the board the period was 2 years. Back then, the current President was self-appointed and the other members were voted in. They've had elections since then but no one wants to run so the president appoints those he feels would do a good job.

Link to comment

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.

 

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"

===================

Make sure you read all the posts for context.

Edited by CondorTrax
Link to comment

I would advocate that the caches being considered for publication to coincide with the 2 events be evaluated and published 1 day after the day of the event. This would send a clear message that their behavior, attitude and direction is not in-line with what Geocaching is all about. There's been enough chatter on this forum and on the 2 NNJC FB pages that this would suck but would be appropriate.

While several reviewers have posted to this thread, expressing displeasure about how everything transpired, it is quite a different matter to ask a reviewer to take sides when it comes to publication. If the caches were submitted at least 10 days in advance of the event date, and if the caches meet the listing guidelines, then I'd expect the reviewer to publish them. So would any other cache owner.

 

Secondly, it would support the GC rule that caches placed for the purpose of attracting people to an event is not permitted.

You are misinterpreting the listing guidelines. There's nothing wrong with hiding new permanent caches timed to coincide with an event date. The guidelines guard against placing temporary caches for events, and also guard against events that are organized solely for the purpose of hunting caches. (So long as there's even a flash-mob length meeting where geocachers can socialize, there's a socializing purpose -- otherwise flash mob events would not be published.)

Link to comment

I had to clear the air and bring the issues back to center. So I posted the comments below on the "NNJC Free Speech Zone" Facebook page we created as a way to freely express and move the conversation forward.

 

NNJC President(name redacted): Clearly you and "the board" voted to keep me off. Can't speak for (name redacted).

 

I want you to state for the record why I was kicked off? What is the policy and justification? 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 don't see my name anywhere on the 2 screen-shots. Remember, (name redacted) purged me when I posted the GS forum thread the second time. I thought FB burped and couldn't believe, subsequently, that I had been purged and then blocked

 

As (name redacted) claims, he sent me an explanation and apology....Show me where an explanation or apology was delivered to me justifying the expulsion.

 

Since this selective banning issue is one of the core problems, I believe the NNJC community at large deserve a response. Really shouldn't take very long. The 2 screen-shots are the evidence.

 

Reconciliation, in my view, can only really begin when things like this are put out for all to evaluate. Those that know me know I'm not a hot-head, although my Latin passion and temper do come to the surface.

 

I have not been the cacher I once was due to personal reasons. Those that know me know. But that does not excuse ANYONE from curtailing my ability and right to express and communicate. The actions taken by (name redacted) and his leadership are inexcusable. Yes, it's OUR FB page... we should demand more from the appointed board and not back-room decisions. Not sure who voted or just shrugged their shoulders and said, "yeah ok you're in again", but accountability should be demanded of anyone in a position of leadership.

 

This is going to get me in trouble with (name redacted){caching wife}... but then again gotta express it. For those who simply want caches to go out and log at the expense of what happens, that's wonderful, enjoy. But, when those that have a mandate to improve, educate and progress fail on that core mission and are a law unto themselves, you are not being appropriately represented.

 

More than likely, your "board" has voted to keep me out. If that's OK with you then I'll live with it. This is a game. I can still cache. But keep in mind that what happened to me and others can also happen to you. Your cache will be force-archived, your voice and tongue will be smothered. You will be unwelcome at events and activities... but as long as there's a cache out there you may shrug and say "oh well, doesn't affect me". It does. Each time you now see an Archive notice you'll take a closer look to see who got archived, where and why. When you see a comment on your FB page prefaced by, "I hope this gets approved to post", or "this will probably get deleted", or you have to self-censor your comment so you don't offend "the board", or you look at someone's post and wonder "oh boy, cant believe he/she got away with that"... you're affected.

 

So, bringing this back and tying a nice bow on it.... (name redacted)NNJC President.... I ask you and the board again.... justify.

Link to comment

I would advocate that the caches being considered for publication to coincide with the 2 events be evaluated and published 1 day after the day of the event. This would send a clear message that their behavior, attitude and direction is not in-line with what Geocaching is all about. There's been enough chatter on this forum and on the 2 NNJC FB pages that this would suck but would be appropriate.

While several reviewers have posted to this thread, expressing displeasure about how everything transpired, it is quite a different matter to ask a reviewer to take sides when it comes to publication. If the caches were submitted at least 10 days in advance of the event date, and if the caches meet the listing guidelines, then I'd expect the reviewer to publish them. So would any other cache owner.

 

Secondly, it would support the GC rule that caches placed for the purpose of attracting people to an event is not permitted.

You are misinterpreting the listing guidelines. There's nothing wrong with hiding new permanent caches timed to coincide with an event date. The guidelines guard against placing temporary caches for events, and also guard against events that are organized solely for the purpose of hunting caches. (So long as there's even a flash-mob length meeting where geocachers can socialize, there's a socializing purpose -- otherwise flash mob events would not be published.)

I stand corrected. Thank you for the clarification.

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