Geocache Archive Requests

[+NanCycle]

Okay so not to belabor the point but here is one of the new caches published today: http://coord.info/GC4TQ6D It is a micro hidden in a crack in a rock right next to the trail as far as I can tell.

 

The "Christmas Presents for Brian Snat" cache http://coord.info/GC2JFXR, a giant sized ammo can, was archived so the one above could be placed. The new cache is 471 feet away from where the archived cache was, however its interesting that there is a note on the new cache page, showing the coordinates were moved 46 feet further north today. The initial listing/submission had it 517 feet from the archived cache, in which case, why couldn't they place it 11 feet further away to preserve the older cache? Especially since it is just a micro in a rock crack. Its likely that the coordinate change was due to the original coordinates being off, but either way, surely there are other cracks within 50 feet or so on the same rock outcrop being highlighted?

Geocachers should post on NJ's State Parks facebook page a shame notice on them for acting this way. I am both doing that as well as messaging the park directors directly. It is absolutely unexcusable, and against the spirit of the game. Of course Groundspeak likely encourages this becuase the geo-trails are the newest big revenue generator. Boycotting ALL New Jersey parks should be done until the action is rectified.

 

post a note on NJ State Parks facebook page here:

https://www.facebook.com/NewJerseyStateParks

 

I posted as a comment on somebody's post (yours, I think) but I can't find the posts now. Were they deleted, or do I just not know how to locate them?

[+CondorTrax]

I really do hope GS is reviewing this thread and considering the ramifications. It's been posted a few times that GS will not get involved in local or regional squabbles; that it's up to those groups to figure it all out. My contention, however, is that GS is being invoked, via Geocaching, by NNJC as NNJC being the de facto governing body in NJ with respect to approving caches in parks (be they National, State, County, etc). It appears that it would be up to NNJC to determine cache placement. The issue, however, is that it's up to GS through their review process which determines cache placement, I have been led to believe, and not a sub-authority.

 

The logic being that GS should determine if in fact NNJC has the charter to do what they're proposing in their plan. Moreover, that the outright manipulation of the Park Admins to be their coercive element in making sure that plan is enacted is a tactic which GS would support, as has been demonstrated and implemented, by NNJC.

Edited December 9, 2013 by CondorTrax

[jholly]

Best I can tell Groundspeak is not the morality police. Cachers voluntarily archived their cache and other caches were submitted for approval. The reviewers job is to publish the cache if it meets publishing guidelines. What the politics of the situation is not for the reviewer or Groundspeak to consider, there is no politic guideline. Yeah, it sucks, but it is not Groundspeak's or the the reviewers battle.

 

And I think your confusing a geotrail (a.k.a power trail) with a geotour.

Groundspeak holds a very high moral compass of its members and more, so they are DEFINITELY part of this.

 

Do you honestly think it was a VOLUNTARY archived cache. No, if you read the message posted by the Park's Member ID it was a THREAT! Lets see how you feel when someone says "remove it or we'll remove it" about one of your caches.

 

I wasn't confused, but was under the impression that they were setting up a Geo Tour. Keynote said it wasn't and noted it wasn't on the Geo Tour list. However, I do remember talking with a fellow geocacher about a "tour" that was sanctioned by GS but doesn't appear on the Tour link. I'd have to find it though.

 

The view from outside ...

 

Sorry this was a voluntary archive. The cache owner bleated and logged the archive log and that makes it a voluntary archive. Yes, there was a threat. What would have happened if the owner did not archive the cache? Well his cache would be stolen by the parks. Of course by this time it is a small gladware with a piece of paper in it. No big loss. Now what? Even if the cache is gone they still have not solved the proximity problem until the listing gets archived. And how is that accomplished if the owner does not archive it? Well, the president of NNJC could post a NA saying that this cache is in the way of his new power trail and needs to go. After the reviewer finishes laughing he ignores the request. It is going to take the park ranger as the land manager posting the NA that the permission has been revoked. Now the reviewer can ask questions like "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" Perhaps the reviewer would be able to elicit response that the park ranger supports archiving other caches but will allow those from NNJC or the parks account. Maybe, just maybe, at that point he can ask for GS guidance and GS can somewhat involved. At the very least the reviewer can find out that there will a number of caches submitted and perhaps the reviewer will decide that this a power trail submission and operate with the 20 day service goal. Some one should also have started asking questions up the chain of command in the parks service.

 

Quite frankly I don't really see any GS involvement in this one. The owner archived their caches and the parks submitted new ones. Where is the problem? Does it stink? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah. Does it require GS involvement? No, the train left the station.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

____________________________________________

Article from NJ350

 

"(Name Redacted) President NNJC

August 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm

As New Jersey is known as “New Jersey’s Crossroads of the American Revolution”, we propose to launch:

 

~ The “Crossroads of the American Revolution Geotrail”.

 

This Geocaching geotrail can be located across New Jersey to feature important “Crossroads” locations from Fort Lee to Trenton.

 

There are other future Geotrails ideas that can also be addressed:

 

~ New Jersey Lighthouse Geotrail,

~ Morris/DR Canal Geotrail, spotlighting New Jersey’s historic canals.

~ NJ Native American Cultural history

 

Who we are:

We are the Northern New Jersey Cachers, (NNJC) a non-profit organization and leading authority on Geocaching throughout New Jersey. NNJC supports and partners with many organizations to teach and present quality geocaching programs. Some of our current clients where we have put on programs; Essex, Morris, Somerset, Sussex Counties, Jefferson, Franklin, Chester, Denville Townships, NJ Conservation Foundation, Great Swamp Watershed Association, Harding Land Trust, Audubon at Scherman Hoffman wildlife Sanctuary, and Duke Farm Foundation.

 

Implementation:

Many NJ parks already have geocaches, including Monmouth battlefield which has many geocaches placed there. We can work on a plan to replace these and add new ones as we see fit.

 

 

I'm just an outsider quietly following this thread with interest, more from the standpoint of an interest in the coup aspect. I don't have a FB account, so much of what may be common knowledge about this topic I do not see. My POV has been that I am only seeing one side here in the forum. However, I have to say the items I bolded almost made me spew my coffee this morning. NJ, it's none of my business (that doesn't preclude me from posting in a forum) but I would be very upset if someone took it upon themselves to act in this fashion under the guise of a social group leader in Ohio. Clients?...Really?

[+dprovan]

The view from outside ...

 

Sorry this was a voluntary archive. The cache owner bleated and logged the archive log and that makes it a voluntary archive. Yes, there was a threat. What would have happened if the owner did not archive the cache? Well his cache would be stolen by the parks. Of course by this time it is a small gladware with a piece of paper in it. No big loss. Now what? Even if the cache is gone they still have not solved the proximity problem until the listing gets archived. And how is that accomplished if the owner does not archive it? Well, the president of NNJC could post a NA saying that this cache is in the way of his new power trail and needs to go. After the reviewer finishes laughing he ignores the request. It is going to take the park ranger as the land manager posting the NA that the permission has been revoked. Now the reviewer can ask questions like "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" Perhaps the reviewer would be able to elicit response that the park ranger supports archiving other caches but will allow those from NNJC or the parks account. Maybe, just maybe, at that point he can ask for GS guidance and GS can somewhat involved. At the very least the reviewer can find out that there will a number of caches submitted and perhaps the reviewer will decide that this a power trail submission and operate with the 20 day service goal. Some one should also have started asking questions up the chain of command in the parks service.

 

Quite frankly I don't really see any GS involvement in this one. The owner archived their caches and the parks submitted new ones. Where is the problem? Does it stink? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah. Does it require GS involvement? No, the train left the station.

This is like saying if a bully threatens to hit you, and you back down instead of getting your nose broken, then it's too late to complain about the bully threatening you. Furthermore, if the CO had acted as you suggest, GS for sure wouldn't get involved because it's a land manager saying the cache isn't allowed. "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" "No, it doesn't." End of story.

 

Instead, the CO graciously acted as if the land manager's request was reasonable, since, in isolation, it is. Now he (and others) are asking in general whether this is behavior that should be tolerated by the community, perhaps even prevented by GS. Not only is that the gentlemanly way to approach it, it also puts the CO in a neutral position because he no longer has a cache to defend.

 

In contrast, you're suggesting he should have gotten into a pissing match since then GS would have had to step in to break it up. I like his approach better, and I'd hate to see him penalized for taking it.

[+NeverSummer]

The view from outside ...

 

Sorry this was a voluntary archive. The cache owner bleated and logged the archive log and that makes it a voluntary archive. Yes, there was a threat. What would have happened if the owner did not archive the cache? Well his cache would be stolen by the parks. Of course by this time it is a small gladware with a piece of paper in it. No big loss. Now what? Even if the cache is gone they still have not solved the proximity problem until the listing gets archived. And how is that accomplished if the owner does not archive it? Well, the president of NNJC could post a NA saying that this cache is in the way of his new power trail and needs to go. After the reviewer finishes laughing he ignores the request. It is going to take the park ranger as the land manager posting the NA that the permission has been revoked. Now the reviewer can ask questions like "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" Perhaps the reviewer would be able to elicit response that the park ranger supports archiving other caches but will allow those from NNJC or the parks account. Maybe, just maybe, at that point he can ask for GS guidance and GS can somewhat involved. At the very least the reviewer can find out that there will a number of caches submitted and perhaps the reviewer will decide that this a power trail submission and operate with the 20 day service goal. Some one should also have started asking questions up the chain of command in the parks service.

 

Quite frankly I don't really see any GS involvement in this one. The owner archived their caches and the parks submitted new ones. Where is the problem? Does it stink? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah. Does it require GS involvement? No, the train left the station.

This is like saying if a bully threatens to hit you, and you back down instead of getting your nose broken, then it's too late to complain about the bully threatening you. Furthermore, if the CO had acted as you suggest, GS for sure wouldn't get involved because it's a land manager saying the cache isn't allowed. "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" "No, it doesn't." End of story.

 

Instead, the CO graciously acted as if the land manager's request was reasonable, since, in isolation, it is. Now he (and others) are asking in general whether this is behavior that should be tolerated by the community, perhaps even prevented by GS. Not only is that the gentlemanly way to approach it, it also puts the CO in a neutral position because he no longer has a cache to defend.

 

In contrast, you're suggesting he should have gotten into a pissing match since then GS would have had to step in to break it up. I like his approach better, and I'd hate to see him penalized for taking it.

I agree.

 

But I also agree that, going forward, cachers in NJ might want to see the process through as jholly outlined.

 

Groundspeak does have a guideline about cache permanence, and it would be interesting to see how this case would be ruled on based on land manager concerns and cache permanence guidelines. It seems like the existing caches would suit the park just fine, and the request to archive is actually spearheaded by the local association, not the Park system itself. The ranger is a complicit pawn in this coup, and perhaps even the Queen.

[+weathernowcast]

The view from outside ...

 

Sorry this was a voluntary archive. The cache owner bleated and logged the archive log and that makes it a voluntary archive. Yes, there was a threat. What would have happened if the owner did not archive the cache? Well his cache would be stolen by the parks. Of course by this time it is a small gladware with a piece of paper in it. No big loss. Now what? Even if the cache is gone they still have not solved the proximity problem until the listing gets archived. And how is that accomplished if the owner does not archive it? Well, the president of NNJC could post a NA saying that this cache is in the way of his new power trail and needs to go. After the reviewer finishes laughing he ignores the request. It is going to take the park ranger as the land manager posting the NA that the permission has been revoked. Now the reviewer can ask questions like "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" Perhaps the reviewer would be able to elicit response that the park ranger supports archiving other caches but will allow those from NNJC or the parks account. Maybe, just maybe, at that point he can ask for GS guidance and GS can somewhat involved. At the very least the reviewer can find out that there will a number of caches submitted and perhaps the reviewer will decide that this a power trail submission and operate with the 20 day service goal. Some one should also have started asking questions up the chain of command in the parks service.

 

Quite frankly I don't really see any GS involvement in this one. The owner archived their caches and the parks submitted new ones. Where is the problem? Does it stink? Yeah. Does it suck? Yeah. Does it require GS involvement? No, the train left the station.

This is like saying if a bully threatens to hit you, and you back down instead of getting your nose broken, then it's too late to complain about the bully threatening you. Furthermore, if the CO had acted as you suggest, GS for sure wouldn't get involved because it's a land manager saying the cache isn't allowed. "Does this mean you don't want caches in your park anymore?" "No, it doesn't." End of story.

 

Instead, the CO graciously acted as if the land manager's request was reasonable, since, in isolation, it is. Now he (and others) are asking in general whether this is behavior that should be tolerated by the community, perhaps even prevented by GS. Not only is that the gentlemanly way to approach it, it also puts the CO in a neutral position because he no longer has a cache to defend.

 

In contrast, you're suggesting he should have gotten into a pissing match since then GS would have had to step in to break it up. I like his approach better, and I'd hate to see him penalized for taking it.

Thank you.

[+trowel32]

So the NNJC is wanting taxpayer dollars to pay for their takeover of geocaching in the Garden State?

 

Develop a budget.

Estimate depending on quantity of geotrail geocaches, geocoins, and website promotion.

Estimate: $3000 – $5000. We are submitting a NJ350 State Grant application to hopefully cover these expenses. Perhaps underwriting by NJ dept of Tourism or other groups.

Wow I had no idea I could get paid by a "client" to create a geotrail. Who knew they were so lucrative? I'm in the wrong business, I guess. Seriously though, I know there's some cost for geocoins or pathtags and containers, but $5,000? C'mon

Edited December 10, 2013 by trowel32

[+Traditional Bill]

So the NNJC is wanting taxpayer dollars to pay for their takeover of geocaching in the Garden State?

 

Develop a budget.

Estimate depending on quantity of geotrail geocaches, geocoins, and website promotion.

Estimate: $3000 – $5000. We are submitting a NJ350 State Grant application to hopefully cover these expenses. Perhaps underwriting by NJ dept of Tourism or other groups.

Wow I had no idea I could get paid by a "client" to create a geotrail. Who knew they were so lucrative? I'm in the wrong business, I guess. Seriously though, I know there's some cost for geocoins or pathtags and containers, but $5,000? C'mon

 

Yeah, this is what really struck a nerve with me. You really need $3-5K for 30 lock n' locks, some log books and some geocoins? Heh.....I suppose that's what non-profit organizations are all about.

[+hydnsek]

I have to take exception to this. Groundspeak does not encourage geotrails. I know that there has a been talk here and there in the forums about geotrails being good for Groundspeak because of money, and that Groundspeak wants geotrails. But that is just not the case.

 

You need to remember that the founders of the site, Jeremy and Bryan, are old school cacher types. When they go out caching, they'd rather go on nice hikes and get a smattering of caches here and there. They are not gung-ho about geotrails. Just because they allow them, doesn't mean that they're "encouraging" them in order to get more money.

You can take exception to it all you want...but the fact is they do encourage and promote it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/travel/

 

And with five digit income, I'd say they certainly like them. That is a lot of memberships to make up....and not sure they are getting those.

GeoTours are NOT geotrails. Two different things entirely.

 

Implementation:

Many NJ parks already have geocaches, including Monmouth battlefield which has many geocaches placed there. We can work on a plan to replace these and add new ones as we see fit.

Shocking to see such a blatant statement of intent from NNJC.

Edited December 10, 2013 by hydnsek

[+briansnat]

I have to take exception to this. Groundspeak does not encourage geotrails. I know that there has a been talk here and there in the forums about geotrails being good for Groundspeak because of money, and that Groundspeak wants geotrails. But that is just not the case.

 

You need to remember that the founders of the site, Jeremy and Bryan, are old school cacher types. When they go out caching, they'd rather go on nice hikes and get a smattering of caches here and there. They are not gung-ho about geotrails. Just because they allow them, doesn't mean that they're "encouraging" them in order to get more money.

You can take exception to it all you want...but the fact is they do encourage and promote it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/travel/

 

And with five digit income, I'd say they certainly like them. That is a lot of memberships to make up....and not sure they are getting those.

GeoTours are NOT geotrails. Two different things entirely. The Washington State Parks Centennial GeoTour, for example, takes you to 100 state parks all over Washington state, some in pretty remote areas. You have to travel about 3000 miles to get them all, so definitely NOT a geotrail.

 

And geotrails are not power trails (well not always).

[+Mudfrog]

I have to take exception to this. Groundspeak does not encourage geotrails. I know that there has a been talk here and there in the forums about geotrails being good for Groundspeak because of money, and that Groundspeak wants geotrails. But that is just not the case.

 

You need to remember that the founders of the site, Jeremy and Bryan, are old school cacher types. When they go out caching, they'd rather go on nice hikes and get a smattering of caches here and there. They are not gung-ho about geotrails. Just because they allow them, doesn't mean that they're "encouraging" them in order to get more money.

You can take exception to it all you want...but the fact is they do encourage and promote it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/travel/

 

And with five digit income, I'd say they certainly like them. That is a lot of memberships to make up....and not sure they are getting those.

GeoTours are NOT geotrails. Two different things entirely.

 

Implementation:

Many NJ parks already have geocaches, including Monmouth battlefield which has many geocaches placed there. We can work on a plan to replace these and add new ones as we see fit.

Shocking to see such a blatant statement of intent from NNJC.

 

Shocking is ok to use but the first word that came to my mind was the other S word,,, sickening!

[+colleda]

So the NNJC is wanting taxpayer dollars to pay for their takeover of geocaching in the Garden State?

 

Develop a budget.

Estimate depending on quantity of geotrail geocaches, geocoins, and website promotion.

Estimate: $3000 – $5000. We are submitting a NJ350 State Grant application to hopefully cover these expenses. Perhaps underwriting by NJ dept of Tourism or other groups.

Wow I had no idea I could get paid by a "client" to create a geotrail. Who knew they were so lucrative? I'm in the wrong business, I guess. Seriously though, I know there's some cost for geocoins or pathtags and containers, but $5,000? C'mon

 

Would this be a GC franchise with percentage back to GC? :anibad:

[Mr.Yuck]

So the NNJC is wanting taxpayer dollars to pay for their takeover of geocaching in the Garden State?

 

Develop a budget.

Estimate depending on quantity of geotrail geocaches, geocoins, and website promotion.

Estimate: $3000 – $5000. We are submitting a NJ350 State Grant application to hopefully cover these expenses. Perhaps underwriting by NJ dept of Tourism or other groups.

Wow I had no idea I could get paid by a "client" to create a geotrail. Who knew they were so lucrative? I'm in the wrong business, I guess. Seriously though, I know there's some cost for geocoins or pathtags and containers, but $5,000? C'mon

 

Yeah, this is what really struck a nerve with me. You really need $3-5K for 30 lock n' locks, some log books and some geocoins? Heh.....I suppose that's what non-profit organizations are all about.

 

I can only speak as an owner of a Seaway Trail Geocache. That's a Geotrail run by a non-profit that is 90% in New York, with the rest in Pa. And get this, they got regular old Geocachers to place the caches for them. They give away Geocoins, and lots of them. Every cache is an ammo box (which they originally provide), and they go missing. I've had a replacement mailed to me, and know others that have. They have unique hole punches in them, which go missing all the time. Often the clueless in our ranks will "trade" for this punch. I've had 2 or 3 of those mailed to me. This stuff all adds up though, I can see 5 grand a year.

[+wmpastor]

So the NNJC is wanting taxpayer dollars to pay for their takeover of geocaching in the Garden State?

 

Develop a budget.

Estimate depending on quantity of geotrail geocaches, geocoins, and website promotion.

Estimate: $3000 – $5000. We are submitting a NJ350 State Grant application to hopefully cover these expenses. Perhaps underwriting by NJ dept of Tourism or other groups.

Wow I had no idea I could get paid by a "client" to create a geotrail. Who knew they were so lucrative? I'm in the wrong business, I guess. Seriously though, I know there's some cost for geocoins or pathtags and containers, but $5,000? C'mon

 

Yeah, this is what really struck a nerve with me. You really need $3-5K for 30 lock n' locks, some log books and some geocoins? Heh.....I suppose that's what non-profit organizations are all about.

 

I can only speak as an owner of a Seaway Trail Geocache. That's a Geotrail run by a non-profit that is 90% in New York, with the rest in Pa. And get this, they got regular old Geocachers to place the caches for them. They give away Geocoins, and lots of them. Every cache is an ammo box (which they originally provide), and they go missing. I've had a replacement mailed to me, and know others that have. They have unique hole punches in them, which go missing all the time. Often the clueless in our ranks will "trade" for this punch. I've had 2 or 3 of those mailed to me. This stuff all adds up though, I can see 5 grand a year.

Seems like a padlock and 4 feet of chain would help - chain it to a tree. Or, print or emboss the group's name on the box to discourage theft.

[+weathernowcast]

I have asked Keystone to close this thread as it has served its purpose by raising awareness to the topic I presented.

[+JBnW]

WNC, Sorry you got caught up in this mess, and hope you and the cachers of northern NJ don't get steam-rolled again.

[Keystone]

I am closing this thread at the OP's request.

 

If there are material new developments, a New Jersey geocacher is welcome to open a new thread in the future -- either here in the Geocaching Topics forum, if of general interest, or in the Mid-Atlantic regional forum, if a "free speech zone" is needed for issues largely of local interest.