Landowner permission (or not): different standards for virtual rewards versus earthcaches

[+hzoi]

I just discovered today that earthcaches and Virtual Rewards have two different standards for landowner permission.  Why is this?

Earthcaches by default require landowner permission, or proof from the cache owner that no permission is required.  From the Help Center:

Quote

EarthCache permission

Landowner or land manager permission is required for most EarthCache locations. Warn the manager that your EarthCache may bring more people to the site so they can plan for more visitors.

To document permission, post a Reviewer Note with the name, title, and contact information of the person who granted permission. If possible, include a copy of the email that they sent to you.

Public lands are managed in different ways throughout the world. For example, EarthCaches placed on National Parks Service property in the United States will need a special permission. If you are certain that the location requires no permission, explain this in a Reviewer Note.

Conversely, there is no initial burden to show landowner permission for Virtual Rewards.  From the Help Center:

Quote

Permission

Virtual Caches must be placed in locations where geocachers are allowed to enter. In some sensitive areas the reviewer can ask for permission to ensure the land manager is aware of the Virtual Cache.

Discussion is welcome from geocachers, but I'd really like to hear back from a lackey on this one, or at least a reviewer, on the official position.  And if there isn't one, and the rules just ended up being different, then I'd ask that the powers that be consider equally applying the standards, either one way or the other. 

After all, some virtual rewards appear to already be having issues with landowner permission, or lack thereof.  This one in Vatican City had to be revamped because cachers who didn't speak German, or who didn't look German enough, were being denied access to a cemetery that was not really open to the public.  My suspicion is that no permission was ever obtained.

[Moun10Bike]

The guidelines for EarthCaches are decided upon and maintained by the Geological Society of America (GSA). The Community Volunteer Support team at HQ, in cooperation with regional reviewers, is responsible for the others.

[+hzoi]

44 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

The guidelines for EarthCaches are decided upon and maintained by the Geological Society of America (GSA). The Community Volunteer Support team at HQ, in cooperation with regional reviewers, is responsible for the others.

Thanks for responding.  Can you shed some more light on why these two groups opted for different standards? 

[Moun10Bike]

You will have to ask the GSA why they feel the way they do about the explicit permission requirement.

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Thanks for responding.  Can you shed some more light on why these two groups opted for different standards? 

From the FAQ's:

Quote

Advance permission is required to ensure that bringing people to a site does not cause a conflict with the management of that site. Many sites have multiple management issues, such as the protection of rare and endangered fauna, the protection of archaeological artifacts and the protection of a geological phenomenon. In many cases that protection has been obscurity (i.e. because people don't know about it, they don't visit). By placing an EarthCache at some public sites, we may cause a management issue and so the land manager needs to make sure that the EarthCache fits into their management plan. Furthermore, seeking permission has raised the positive profile of caching in the eyes of land managers, opening the way for all types of geocaching on those lands. We realize that seeking permission to place an EarthCache seems like a superfluous step to many, but it is truly as important as developing great logging tasks!

 

Link for reference:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

[+dprovan]

31 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Thanks for responding.  Can you shed some more light on why these two groups opted for different standards? 

From the FAQ's:

Quote

Advance permission is required to ensure that bringing people to a site does not cause a conflict with the management of that site. Many sites have multiple management issues, such as the protection of rare and endangered fauna, the protection of archaeological artifacts and the protection of a geological phenomenon. In many cases that protection has been obscurity (i.e. because people don't know about it, they don't visit). By placing an EarthCache at some public sites, we may cause a management issue and so the land manager needs to make sure that the EarthCache fits into their management plan. Furthermore, seeking permission has raised the positive profile of caching in the eyes of land managers, opening the way for all types of geocaching on those lands. We realize that seeking permission to place an EarthCache seems like a superfluous step to many, but it is truly as important as developing great logging tasks!

 

Link for reference:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

So the answer is that GSA has very good reasons which appear to be valid for any virtual cache, whether an EarthCache or a true Virtual cache. Hence hzoi's question, which, in light of this input, might now be better expressed as "Why are the requirements for new Virtual caches so lax?" Even GSA can explain why stricter permission rules are a good idea.

[+CAVinoGal]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

Quote

Permission

Virtual Caches must be placed in locations where geocachers are allowed to enter. In some sensitive areas the reviewer can ask for permission to ensure the land manager is aware of the Virtual Cache.

Discussion is welcome from geocachers, but I'd really like to hear back from a lackey on this one, or at least a reviewer, on the official position.  And if there isn't one, and the rules just ended up being different, then I'd ask that the powers that be consider equally applying the standards, either one way or the other. 

After all, some virtual rewards appear to already be having issues with landowner permission, or lack thereof.  This one in Vatican City had to be revamped because cachers who didn't speak German, or who didn't look German enough, were being denied access to a cemetery that was not really open to the public.  My suspicion is that no permission was ever obtained.

It makes complete sense to me to err on the side of asking permission first, as GSA has done with EarthCaches.  If the new Virtual rewards and the lax permission requirements are causing issues, they need to be tightened up.  And bringing them into line with EarthCaches seems to be a good way to go.  Both types bring you to a location, to see and explore that location to complete the cache requirements.  Permission of those who will be affected by people fulfilling those requirements seems a given, to me.

[Keystone]

If the listing guidelines for new virtuals were strict, I would abstain from reviewing them.  From 2003 to 2005, I had my fill of:

• "wow factor" - the difference between "I never knew this was here" and "it's nice to score a virtual at this tourist place I'm visiting anyways."
• "cannot place a physical cache nearby"
• "cannot Google the logging tasks"
• "cannot be a common item, like a historic marker"
• etc., etc.

Even with the "new virtuals," there have been lots of spirited reviews with owners who received a Virtual Reward.  "You need permission for each and every virtual" would make that far worse.  I would only ask about permission if there was a land manager policy that required it, or if the circumstances warranted it.  (hzoi's posts about the North Korean border cache make for a good example.)

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, Keystone said:

Even with the "new virtuals," there have been lots of spirited reviews with owners who received a Virtual Reward.  "You need permission for each and every virtual" would make that far worse. 

Is this a problem for EarthCaches?

[Keystone]

You would have to ask an Earthcache reviewer.  Their workset is quite different from a geocache reviewer's.  If I get bogged down reviewing a virtual with two unacceptable ALR's, the 30 minutes I spend on that means that I can't review the nice series of 12 caches in the local park before bedtime.  If a cache sits in my queue for more than a few days, I start getting emails about the 'delay.' 

[+palmetto]

My take on why 2 different standards: Earthcaches are reviewed by a small number of reviewers. ( For a long time, they were all reviewed by one GeoAware. One guy, reading pages from all over the world; and then him and another GSA staffer). Local knowledge by the GeoAware accounts is variable. 

Virts are reviewed by the area reviewer.  Presumably with a better sense of the locale, and a better sense of when to ask questions about access, or request an explicit permission statement. The permission standard for Virtual Rewards is in line with permission standard for caches generally.

 

 

[+hzoi]

13 hours ago, Keystone said:

I would only ask about permission if there was a land manager policy that required it, or if the circumstances warranted it.  (hzoi's posts about the North Korean border cache make for a good example.)

 

5 hours ago, palmetto said:

My take on why 2 different standards: Earthcaches are reviewed by a small number of reviewers. ( For a long time, they were all reviewed by one GeoAware. One guy, reading pages from all over the world; and then him and another GSA staffer). Local knowledge by the GeoAware accounts is variable. 

Virts are reviewed by the area reviewer.  Presumably with a better sense of the locale, and a better sense of when to ask questions about access, or request an explicit permission statement. The permission standard for Virtual Rewards is in line with permission standard for caches generally.

I hadn't considered the earthcache permission standard as a way to compensate for limited local knowledge by geoawares, but that does make sense.

How often does cross-talk occur between geoawares and Groundspeak reviewers?  Do they ever reach out for a local reviewer's opinion, is it a stovepipe operation, or something in between?