Time for a new vrtual icon for national/state/county parks

[+Rathergohiking]

What about a virtual icon based on parks? I think the new virtual icon based on interesting things to see at our parks would be a lot of fun. The actual cache should be created via a partnership between Groundspeak and park authorities. Grounspeak would create/approve the cache in conjunction with the park authority. Cachers could not create their own park cache. That way Groundspeak can do its own quality control and specify cache page content and logging requirements. I view that as a win-win situation. Quality caches will be created and the parks will get an attendance boost and free publicity. I would even be willing to pay a higher membership fee to geocaching.com. Your thoughts???

[+Touchstone]

There's something already in place if the NPS or other Land Managers want to avail themselves of the opportunity:

 

Geotours

[+lamoracke]

As someone who would not mind a new icon for challenge caches, I would not see the value of this particular one. It varies by area anyway. Yellowstone and Mount Rainier, two parks I just went to recently have a lot of virtual and earth cache ones already inside. So if you establish one, it would not incorporate those.

 

I think it would be nice to just get new caches in National Parks, not worry about the icon. I do not see the need for this. Power trails do not need their own icon either as some have asked, not that there is a pure definition of them anyway. There are wilderness areas, state parks, national parks, indian reservations, national recreational areas....lots of places that need special permission as a whole to get caches in and possibly high fees and to make a special icon for just one kind? Do not feel its needed, just my opinion. Many national parks have a buttload of caches just outside the boundary. Mount Rainier for example has dozens and dozens of caches on the mountain, but are just not passed the gate where the fee area is.

[+Manville Possum]

No thanks.

[+niraD]

We already have a special virtual icon for interesting geological locations within parks.

 

It would be nice to allow virtual caches based on something other than geology (e.g., botany, history, anthropology), but EarthCaches are sponsored by the Geological Society of America, so there you have it.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Parks are fond of saying, Virtual caches only. This would be capitulating to them, and spell the end of any chance of seeing good old-fashioned traditional caches allowed on their precious land.

 

So I'm not crazy about the idea, sorry.

 

Besides, our host website already has a companion site, can't remember the name, just made for "caching" but without caches. They went to a lot of effort to make it the new home for virtuals, so I guessing they won't back-track and suddenly allow virtuals here again. Which I think is a good thing.

[+fuzziebear3]

Did you mean icon, or souvenir?

 

After we get through the countries and states (I know they havent released all of them yet), I guess NP souvis might be nice. But it could also get overwhelming.

[+Manville Possum]

Besides, our host website already has a companion site, can't remember the name, just made for "caching" but without caches. They went to a lot of effort to make it the new home for virtuals, so I guessing they won't back-track and suddenly allow virtuals here again. Which I think is a good thing.

 

Do you mean Waymarking?

 

I'm sure we already have a category for State Parks and National Parks.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Rathergohiking]

I think getting parks involved in geocaching in a positive and educational way is a good thing. By partnering with the parks and Groundspeak, the cache quality would be greatly enhanced and any potential cache saturation minimized. Further, the park could direct you to the areas of the park that they want visitors to see, enabling you to possibly have a better experience than you would otherwise. For what it is worth I would rather find the cache type I just described than a lame LPC micro. Also,

the way marking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option. A souvenir would not wok either. My idea is similar to earthcaches, but the subject matter could be greatly expanded to include history, artifacts, trails, overlooks, and more. Finally, the parks would get a lot of free positive publicity in addition to controlling where the caches are located and thier content. As I said before I believe this would create a win-win situation for all involved: parks, Groundspeak and geocachers.

[+Touchstone]

I think getting parks involved in geocaching in a positive and educational way is a good thing. By partnering with the parks and Groundspeak, the cache quality would be greatly enhanced and any potential cache saturation minimized. Further, the park could direct you to the areas of the park that they want visitors to see, enabling you to possibly have a better experience than you would otherwise. For what it is worth I would rather find the cache type I just described than a lame LPC micro. Also,

the way marking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option. A souvenir would not wok either. My idea is similar to earthcaches, but the subject matter could be greatly expanded to include history, artifacts, trails, overlooks, and more. Finally, the parks would get a lot of free positive publicity in addition to controlling where the caches are located and thier content. As I said before I believe this would create a win-win situation for all involved: parks, Groundspeak and geocachers.

Maybe you could develop a proof of concept with a nearby partner. Wherigo is one example of a retroactive activation of a cache icon. I had an early Wherigo cache that was active before the icon was available. After the icon was implemented, I had the Reviewer change it from a Puzzle to a Wherigo. The same idea could work for your situation. Groundspeak would probably be more receptive to the idea if they actually saw some good implementation of your idea.

 

Good luck! Great enthusiasm

[+Manville Possum]

Also,

the way marking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option. A souvenir would not wok either. My idea is similar to earthcaches, but the subject matter could be greatly expanded to include history, artifacts, trails, overlooks, and more. Finally, the parks would get a lot of free positive publicity in addition to controlling where the caches are located and thier content. As I said before I believe this would create a win-win situation for all involved: parks, Groundspeak and geocachers.

 

I agree that most feel that the Waymarking site is not useable, but we pay to keep the lights on there with our membership fees here, so until it is gone we have less chances of ever getting anything better to replace it.

 

I do like your ideas, have you looked at Wherigo's?

[+The A-Team]

Also, the Waymarking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option.

Horrible in what way? Granted, you won't receive a smiley like you would over on geocaching.com, but what other problems do you see with it? It does have some design and performance issues, but if more people used it, Groundspeak would have more motivation to fix these problems.

[+J Grouchy]

Also, the Waymarking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option.

Horrible in what way? Granted, you won't receive a smiley like you would over on geocaching.com, but what other problems do you see with it? It does have some design and performance issues, but if more people used it, Groundspeak would have more motivation to fix these problems.

 

The Waymarking site is a joke. I don't understand why it can't just have a simple live map feature identical to Geocaching.com site. Instead, one has to actually find the link that takes you to the search page. From there you have to type a location or ZIP code or some other search, and from there it gives you a list. Why not just a plain old map with icons? Geocaching, for me, is easy because I can immediately open an app and see where I am and if there are any caches nearby. If I had to type a search every time, I must say I'd be less inclined to go to the effort. It should be much more fluid and flexible, but instead it requires you to go through several steps just to get to any screen from which to make a choice.

 

Add to that the fact that there is no action necessary or incentive to log it and the whole thing just doesn't hold any interest for 99.99% of the same group of people that find geocaching fun and rewarding. Sure, a number/find count is all too often given too much value...but Waymarking gives you pretty much nothing. It's the equivalent of a free museum or park map, quickly forgotten 30 seconds after it's received. A quick perusal of Waymarks in my area indicate that the last time anyone logged a waymark in my part of Atlanta was five years ago. Dismal and sad. I suspect that's all too often the case in most parts of the world.

[+Manville Possum]

Also, the Waymarking.com website is horrible, in my humble opinion, and is not an option.

Horrible in what way? Granted, you won't receive a smiley like you would over on geocaching.com, but what other problems do you see with it? It does have some design and performance issues, but if more people used it, Groundspeak would have more motivation to fix these problems.

 

The Waymarking site is a joke. I don't understand why it can't just have a simple live map feature identical to Geocaching.com site. Instead, one has to actually find the link that takes you to the search page. From there you have to type a location or ZIP code or some other search, and from there it gives you a list. Why not just a plain old map with icons? Geocaching, for me, is easy because I can immediately open an app and see where I am and if there are any caches nearby. If I had to type a search every time, I must say I'd be less inclined to go to the effort. It should be much more fluid and flexible, but instead it requires you to go through several steps just to get to any screen from which to make a choice.

 

Add to that the fact that there is no action necessary or incentive to log it and the whole thing just doesn't hold any interest for 99.99% of the same group of people that find geocaching fun and rewarding. Sure, a number/find count is all too often given too much value...but Waymarking gives you pretty much nothing. It's the equivalent of a free museum or park map, quickly forgotten 30 seconds after it's received. A quick perusal of Waymarks in my area indicate that the last time anyone logged a waymark in my part of Atlanta was five years ago. Dismal and sad. I suspect that's all too often the case in most parts of the world.

 

I vote to kill off Waymarking and focus on Wherigo. I would like to see my membership fee support geocaching.

[+MountainWoods]

I think the issues with Waymarking can be likened to the Good Roads movement of 100 years ago in the US.

 

Prior to that time the roads were just a mud mess. (I learned the following from studying the Lincoln Highway.)

 

• No one wanted to buy automobiles in the country because the roads were too bad to drive them on. Besides, the farmers could still get to the cities in their horse-drawn wagons that handled such poor road conditions.
  
• No one wanted to fix the roads to be suitable for driving on, because no one wanted to pay high taxes to get the roads fixed when, as already mentioned, the horse-drawn wagons could handle the poor road conditions well enough.
  

Don't fix the road for automobiles, and don't bother to buy automobiles to run on these bad roads. Like MPH likes to constantly remind us, it's all about the money.

 

By the way, it was the automobile and parts manufacturers (like Henry Joy and Carl Fisher) who finally pushed to do something about it. They figured if they could stop the vicious circle and get some good roads made, then the public would start investing in automobiles. They were right -- in that instance.

 

If you don't see the corollary between the Good Roads and Waymarking, you haven't spent any time Waymarking yet.

[+The A-Team]

The Waymarking site is a joke. I don't understand why it can't just have a simple live map feature identical to Geocaching.com site.

I agree that a map would be a huge improvement to the Waymarking site. There's already a limited mini-map on search result pages and a Google Earth plugin, so implementing a more useful map may not actually take that much work.

 

Add to that the fact that there is no action necessary...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In most categories, there are visiting requirements, with a photo being a typical requirement. Are you seeing Waymarking as an armchair activity? I assure you it isn't.

 

...or incentive to log it...

I'm not sure how they're really that much different from geocaches. What incentives do you see with finding geocaches that aren't there for Waymarks?

[+Team Hugs]

When was the last time that Groundspeak created a new cache type?

 

It seems to me that Groundspeak seems to be more interested in decreasing cache types rather than increasing them. Why that is, I don't know.

[+The A-Team]

When was the last time that Groundspeak created a new cache type?

2014. The Giga Event.

Before that was Lab Caches in 2013, and the Block Party in 2011.

 

The only cache type they've ever fully dropped support for is Locationless. There are types that are no longer available (Lost and Found Celebration, 10 Years! Event), but I don't count those because they were one-off occurences, and the ill-fated Geocaching Challenges were never really a cache type.

[+Manville Possum]

When was the last time that Groundspeak created a new cache type?

2014. The Giga Event.

Before that was Lab Caches in 2013, and the Block Party in 2011.

 

Events are not geocaches, and users can not create Lab Caches.

[+Rathergohiking]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

[+Manville Possum]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

 

Good luck with your idea, but I don't think it has a chance.

 

Thanks for posting this thread.

[+Walts Hunting]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

So how many new people would GS have to hire for this function or what current tasks would be eliminated to coordinate a world wide program like you suggest?

 

And apply the same reasoning to the various park departments.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Walts Hunting

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

So how many new people would GS have to hire for this function or what current tasks would be eliminated to coordinate a world wide program like you suggest?

 

And apply the same reasoning to the various park departments.

 

For some park systems, I don't think it would take much. They are already monitoring geocaches in their parks, and they already have a formal review process. So, they already have the manpower allocated. If Groundspeak allowed the park managers to be their own reviewers, the only thing GS would need to do is setup a system where park boundaries could be uploaded, so new cache submissions could go to the park managers for review.

 

Skye.

[+noncentric]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

So how many new people would GS have to hire for this function or what current tasks would be eliminated to coordinate a world wide program like you suggest?

 

And apply the same reasoning to the various park departments.

 

For some park systems, I don't think it would take much. They are already monitoring geocaches in their parks, and they already have a formal review process. So, they already have the manpower allocated. If Groundspeak allowed the park managers to be their own reviewers, the only thing GS would need to do is setup a system where park boundaries could be uploaded, so new cache submissions could go to the park managers for review.

 

Skye.

 

I think one of the biggest issues with the OP's proposal is this:

Groundspeak would create/approve the cache in conjunction with the park authority. Cachers could not create their own park cache.

AFAIK, Groundspeak is a listing service and doesn't create/place their own caches (besides the HQ GeoTour). Some Lackeys are CO's, but they do that separately from their role at Groundspeak. The OP's proposal places Groundspeak in the role of CO, which raises some logistical questions: How would GS place and maintain caches outside of the Seattle area? Would that Groundspeak CO require a new hire, and is that really a full-time role? If Groundspeak doesn't send this new employee to other states, then would the park staff have to place and maintain caches? If so, then that would presumably increase staffing needs/duties at the park.

 

I think it would be great if it was easier to get park permission to place caches, but not certain that the OP's proposal will be feasible without some modification that allows regular cachers to be the CO's.

[+Rathergohiking]

Logistically, the park could be the actual CO and Groundspeak could just review the cache. The point is that the park should "own" the cache, not a geocacher, so that the park is vested in the cache and controls the content and placement, hence good quality control, which should result in some great caches. Lack of good control over content and placement is the main reason virtual caches failed, in my opinion.

[+SwineFlew]

I love threads like this.. it really show who GS are. A little too old school.

Edited September 24, 2015 by SwineFlew

[+Uncle Alaska]

Logistically, the park could be the actual CO and Groundspeak could just review the cache. The point is that the park should "own" the cache, not a geocacher, so that the park is vested in the cache and controls the content and placement, hence good quality control, which should result in some great caches. Lack of good control over content and placement is the main reason virtual caches failed, in my opinion.

 

That, and that they were snowballing at a rate to outpace actual physical cache placement/submission.

[+lamoracke]

and the ill-fated Geocaching Challenges were never really a cache type.

 

Dunno, I had 92 of them before they went poof.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Back to the subject at hand. One of the main reasons virtual caches did not work was there was very poor quality control. Users could get a virtual cache listed for stupid and irrelevant things and many of them got flooded with finds by arm charge cachers. By having Groundspeak and the parks parenting together and publishing the caches, quality control will be greatly enhanced and potential arm chair caching minimized.

 

How? Who is going to monitor the logs? I doubt it would be Groundspeak, as they generally leave the issue of monitoring/deleting armchair logs up to the cache owner. A park representative? I doubt they are going to want that responsibility, either. If this would come to fruition, the park would almost certainly use the partnership with GS as a means to bolster tourism and probably wouldn't give a whiff about people false logging caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

and the ill-fated Geocaching Challenges were never really a cache type.

 

Dunno, I had 92 of them before they went poof.

 

Sure, but they never were a type of geocache and GS never described them as a type of geocache.

 

 

[+noncentric]

Logistically, the park could be the actual CO and Groundspeak could just review the cache. The point is that the park should "own" the cache, not a geocacher, so that the park is vested in the cache and controls the content and placement, hence good quality control, which should result in some great caches. Lack of good control over content and placement is the main reason virtual caches failed, in my opinion.

This goes back to the issue of whether the parks will want to add staff, or add responsibilities to current staff, to create and maintain these new caches. I'd also question the assumption that having the parks create caches equates to 'quality' caches.

 

Once caches are placed, how many resources will the parks want to devote to cache maintenance (ie, monitoring for fake logs). IIRC, fake logs were an issue with the original virtual caches. How do you propose that armchair logging can be minimized with such a system?

 

I'm not trying to bash your idea. Just presenting the types of challenges that such a proposal could face.

[+Rathergohiking]

I cannot see the parks adding staff for this. It is not time intensive at all. I think that argument has no basis.

[+J Grouchy]

All they'd really have to do is make the Waymarking site a site people might actually want to use...maybe develop an app for it, too...and add stats. Then you wouldn't really need all that other jazz.

 

Maybe create a special category of "NPS Certified" or some-such distinction that would be vetted and reviewed separately.

[+fuzziebear3]

Oh, so you are talking about virtuals, just with a different overseeing organization? That makes me less interested, I was interested in caches.

We already have 'virtuals in national parks' pretty well represented using earth caches.

[+J Grouchy]

We already have 'virtuals in national parks' pretty well represented using earth caches.

 

Yes...unless you want to present a historical, architectural or non-geologically-oriented earth science "lesson".

[+fuzziebear3]

We already have 'virtuals in national parks' pretty well represented using earth caches.

 

Yes...unless you want to present a historical, architectural or non-geologically-oriented earth science "lesson".

 

That's true. But if we are going the historical/architectural/educational route, then I wouldn't want to limit it to national parks. It goes back to the discussion about 'educaches' (which I sometimes like as an idea, BTW), but it gets blocked up again by the 'wow factor', and the overseeing body and requirements.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

From http://www.nps.gov/pefo/planyourvisit/geocaching.htm page regarding Geocaching in the Petrified Forest...

 

"This National Park Service-sponsored recreational activity leads you to some of the park's significant geological resources. Using your own Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and a set of clues obtained from this website and hidden along the journey, you can guide yourself to a series of sites in the park. To make your experience an unforgettable success, please read these guidelines and suggestions.

 

Please note that placing physical caches is not permitted in the park without the permission of the National Park Service. Existing physical caches are sponsored and maintained by the National Park Service. Unauthorized caches will be removed by park management."

 

BLM and the Washington State Parks also have published guidelines. I am sure that there are many other park systems that already devote some level of man-power to geocaching.

 

So, some park systems already have the man-power allocated to managing and controlling geocaching. They are also monitoring for unauthorized caches. Back the the OP's suggestion, I don't think there should be a special icon for national/state/county parks. Currently, I am on the fence about allowing virtual caches within these parks. If they are allowed, the way to control the quality issue is to allow the parks systems to be the reviewer for all caches within their parks. If they are also the CO, that's great, but not a requirement unless they want it that way. So, they can go it alone, or they can allow local cachers to hide within their territory. Give the park manager the choice.

 

Do the current reviewers know all of the rules for cache placement, in each and every park system within their review area? Do they actually verify that the CO has received the proper approvals? Do they stay on top of current temporary restrictions, such as closures for fire danger? If the park manager is the reviewer, they will know that. It would streamline management of geocaches in parks for the park managers. It would add more reviewers. The impact on GS would be minimal. They would need a way for a park to register, and submit the park boundary, to train the reviewers, and to direct the review of caches in a park to the park manager. They may have most of these pieces already in place. They have a way to define territories, the already direct caches for review based on territory, and I assume they already have a reviewer training procedure in place. So, they need to add a procedure to register the park. This could be as simple as requiring a letter (on letterhead) to GS, and a means of getting the park boundaries into the database used to manage who reviews what territories. This may be a manual process, or a web site could be created.

 

The park system could also create reward trails, or even go to the full expense of a GeoTour, if they wanted to.

 

In the other direction, there is nothing that forces a park to participate. If they like the current procedure, don't register with GS.

 

Skye.

[+hzoi]

Do the current reviewers know all of the rules for cache placement, in each and every park system within their review area? Do they actually verify that the CO has received the proper approvals? Do they stay on top of current temporary restrictions, such as closures for fire danger?

From my experience, the answers are usually: yes, yes, and most of the time.

 

Reviewers know which park systems require permits or permission, and they require a showing from the cache hider from those that do. Earthcache reviewers, doubly so. I've not yet attempted to place an earthcache on any park land without first securing written permission (and, where required, a permit), but I'm confident that if I did, the reviewer would immediately ask for it.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Perhaps if we all stopped referring to the "placing" of earthcaches as if they were something tangible, the park authorities would recognize the absurdity of needing permission to... publish the coordinates of a geological feature.

 

This corner of the game weirds me out. I stay away to preserve my brain. Just say NO.

[+NeverSummer]

Geocache ownership is a long-term commitment, and has proven over and over again to be problematic in the areas of maintenance, consistent guideline adherence, and consistent review.

 

If you want to see geocaching as an option in greater forms at National Parks, BLM lands, or National Wildlife Refuges, you must be willing to take the slow road: Join the "Friends of..." group, or other non-profit support organization. Get involved in the outreach and education aspects of the lands you are trying to work with. Spend time getting to know staff, and get to know the land management aspects of everything they do as stewards of US Federal lands.

 

Then you might have perspective about why there is not enough "manpower" to review or maintain geocaches with all of the other, more important mission-driven activities that a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge must undertake before dealing with this "emerging" activity.

 

Not everyone who works at a Park or Refuge or whatever is interested in Geocaching. And, in most cases, the lands themselves were established with a specific purpose which is not compatible with the type of use we propose when suggesting a geocache.

 

When you mix in the fact that geocaches are not consistently monitored, maintained, or published across borders, and you have a prime example for why a Land Manager (Park Superintendent, Refuge Manager, Project Lead, e.g.) "ain't got no time for that..."

 

Until we, the users, can prove that we can play nice and handle our responsibilities, and Groundspeak can prove that the Volunteer Reviewers are all on the same page for understanding of how to work with and deal with Federal Lands, you're not going to see these agencies open up their lands for us to trample, leave plastic containers behind, and then let fester when they need archival or maintenance.

 

It isn't so simple as how we might open up our backyard for a geocache to be placed. There are significant concerns and considerations that go into any activity on any lands within the Federal Lands systems we might want to play on. And, until everyone who plays, everyone who Reviews, and everyone who runs the game gets the same in-depth understanding of "why" we can or can't just do what we want, when we want, where we want on those Federal lands, we're never going to make any headway.

 

So, find other places to place a cache. And if you can't take the time to learn the ins and outs of Federal Lands Management, work with those Land Managers to find a compatible and acceptable way to play this silly game... then don't bother trying.

 

It will take time, effort, and proof from Groundspeak and every one of us that we take the guidelines seriously (no buried caches; no nails or screws into trees; cache containers are suitable for the climate and animals present; cache locations, containers, and listings are maintained regularly; caches of concern are reported and removed, or action is taken quickly to deal with issues, etc.--there are plenty of examples still published and kept active all the time) before you're going to convince National Parks and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to open up their lands for this activity.

Edited September 26, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+coppermermaid]

We already have a special virtual icon for interesting geological locations within parks.

 

It would be nice to allow virtual caches based on something other than geology (e.g., botany, history, anthropology), but EarthCaches are sponsored by the Geological Society of America, so there you have it.

 

I agree and I think history would be a hit. I recently went to a couple of historical places in the Keys, Florida, one I had to kayak to, that had no geocaches. I felt disappointed, thinking people were missing out on some interesting history that a geocache could have possibly brought them to. Since a lot of historical places will not want you to place a container on the grounds, it would great to have a virtual. Indian Key off of Islamorada is perfect place for this and I would be so willing to do one. An interesting piece of history only a short 3/4 mile kayak ride.

[+captnemo]

I have found many virtual caches in NPs over the year including 4 this year at Crater Lake NP. Like the OP I would like to see new ones allowed.

 

However in 2013 while in Everglades NP much to my surprise there are 5 traditional caches, (Park Employee for a Day Geocache #1,2,3,4& 5)where the CO is NPS. Not only that but they have done a great job of maintaining them.

 

So it seems that it is up to each park as to whether caches can exist in the park. And it is up to the geocaching community to help them see the advantages in have caches in the NPs.

[+hzoi]

Perhaps if we all stopped referring to the "placing" of earthcaches as if they were something tangible, the park authorities would recognize the absurdity of needing permission to... publish the coordinates of a geological feature.

 

This corner of the game weirds me out. I stay away to preserve my brain. Just say NO.

Last I checked, the earthcache reviewers required proof of landowner permission prior to publication, which requires asking the landowners. Usually that permission hinges at least in part on making sure the cache takes you to a place that's not off limits. If I had tried listing coordinates for this earthcache at the bottom of the falls, rather than at an overlook that's open to the public, it would have been a no go.

[+narcissa]

We already have a special virtual icon for interesting geological locations within parks.

 

It would be nice to allow virtual caches based on something other than geology (e.g., botany, history, anthropology), but EarthCaches are sponsored by the Geological Society of America, so there you have it.

 

I agree and I think history would be a hit. I recently went to a couple of historical places in the Keys, Florida, one I had to kayak to, that had no geocaches. I felt disappointed, thinking people were missing out on some interesting history that a geocache could have possibly brought them to. Since a lot of historical places will not want you to place a container on the grounds, it would great to have a virtual. Indian Key off of Islamorada is perfect place for this and I would be so willing to do one. An interesting piece of history only a short 3/4 mile kayak ride.

 

There is nothing preventing a historical site or society from setting up their own geocaching account and creating appropriate geocaches that bring people to those sites. If there is any kind of building or structure, even something as simple as a sign, then it's possible to incorporate a geocache container into it without causing damage to sensitive sites. Geocachers are extraordinarily helpful and creative people who are always willing to help with things like that. If the people who operate those sites can't see the value in working with geocachers, they are the ones losing out on visitors. It's a big planet with lots of room for geocaches somewhere else.