Jump to content

Effects resulting from the DOC permission issue?


Navigull

Recommended Posts

Hi

I'm new to this geocaching game but have got all enthusiastic and whilst travelling around in the last couple of weeks decided to set up a couple of caches.

 

The second one, in a very scenic spot, I made a virtual one in view of the DOC permission issue.

It got archived because the approver thought it should have been a real one.

 

I did not see any immediate, or mid term, hope of getting DOC approval and I have emailed the "approver" with the relative details.

 

Any further suggestions for setting up caches on DOC administered land anyone?

Link to comment

Unfortunately at this point in time neither Gavin (Rediguana) or myself have the ability (that we are aware of) to approve NZ Caches, there are to the best of my knowledge no NZ based cache approvers. This is under review, and hopefully will be resolved shortly. I'm sorry it's taking so long. I've sent another e-mail today trying to get this issue moving. I beleive with the forum upgrade and other issues the Groundspeak team have been very busy lately. Hopefully with the forum upgrade completed we will see some progress. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Navigull:

There are 2 questions for cachers.

Erik was the reviewer.

the URL was

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=60478

 

Thanks Brent

Navigull


 

Erik hates lame virtual caches - but loves his Land Rover - go figure icon_razz.gif

 

He will come back with an answer to your message - he is just harder to please than some of the Rubber Stamper reviewers - when Erik approves your cache - you know it must be a good one icon_wink.gif

 

Unfortunately we can't see your cache because it hasn't been approved.

 

Maybe you could copy and paste the relavant detail into a post.

 

Ciao,

Brent

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Navigull:

...I made a virtual one in view of the DOC permission issue.

It got archived because the approver thought it should have been a real one...


 

I have had the same problem with Erik. icon_frown.gif

 

Yes, it would be great if we could have a local approver that understands the expectations of local Geocachers. icon_smile.gif

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

Link to comment

Ok the detail is copied below. I could not add the quite impressive (I think) photo.

 

 

S 38° 51.595 E 175° 32.708 (WGS84)

UTM: 60H E 373770 N 5697763

or convert to NAD27 at Jeeep.com

 

 

also download nearest placenames.

Need help? Read about EasyGPS

 

 

In New Zealand

Hidden: 3/23/2003

Use waypoint: GCEC3E (what's this?)

Make this page print-friendly (no logs)

 

Note:To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer.

 

(ratings out of 5 stars. 1 is easiest, 5 is hardest)

Difficulty: Terrain:

 

On a fine day this may just be the best easy access lookout in the north Island. When the weather is right you will see ALL the major North island Mountains plus Lake Taupo. The approach is through some very impressive native bush. Enjoy.

 

Take State Highway 41 from Turangi or Taumaruni and around the mid point look for a turnoff at S 38 51.817 E175 32.708. Then watching out for speed bumps go to the Cache site S38 51.595 E 175 32.787.

If the weather is fine take a long look round and some photos, catch your breath and ........... what next?

 

Well, your mission,( taking a leaf out of the kaimaikid’s book) , is to email me and state the colour of the structure here and the type of animal depicted on the top of the rubbish bin. Please do not include these details when logging the cache find.

 

Warning : I recorded an altitude of 954 meters here. In winter it snows and the road has a reputation for icing up. So please be careful out there.

 

 

Additional Hints (No hints available)

Link to comment

Since the cache text was posted it might be appropriate to post the archive log as well:

<quote>

Hi,

 

Your virtual cache was archived to prevent blocking of the approval queue., though we do thank you for your submission. Frankly there was insufficient information on your virtual cache submission to ensure that it fits within the parameters described here,

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp and that a traditional cache could not be placed at or near that spot. The location should be a specific one that requires a GPS to locate it - not MapQuest. The requirements are also very explicit in stating that a view, however grand, is not a cache.

The location should also be a unique and compelling one of the sort that you'd find in a coffee table book, otherwise it would be more suited to posting at www.waypoint.org. Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, since the virtual prevents a later physical cache being placed within a .1 mile radius of that spot.

 

Often a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. That is usually the case unless the spot is in the middle of a busy city. In places such as cemeteries where a physical cache would be inapropriate the dates on monuments are ideal sources for numbers for the coords to an offset physical cache outside the park. That would not only bring people to your special spot but give them a physical cache to find as well.

 

Please don't hesitate to respond with an explanation if it's been misjudged or after you've amended it to meet the guidelines. Please reference the cache name or number when you reply via e-mail to erik88L-R.

Thanks for your understanding,

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail erik88L-R from the archive log there, referencing the cache URL or GCxxxx waypoint number please.

 

</quote>

 

I did read an e-mail a few minutes ago from Ray, in which he said:

 

<quote>

 

User Navigull has contacted you with the following message:

 

Hi Erik

re GCEC3E Waituhi Mountain Vista

I made this a virtual cache reluctantly after realizing that permission would not given for a standard cache.

The Cache site is in the Waituhi Kuratau Forest Reserve administered by The New Zealand Department of Conservation. They will not give permission for geocaches at this time.

I would be delighted to place a real cach anytime permission is forthcomming

 

I also think that the views are worthy of a coffee table book. Did you see the photo I later attached attached?

 

There are a number of caches on DOC administered land but they were presumably placed prior to the permission required clause in the conditions for setting up a cache directions.

 

Below is a copy of amessage in the New Zealand forum.

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=2860999683&m=3740969445

 

Summary

Currently it appears that all geocaches on public land are there illegally. This is because they are physical and are there without permission. There appear to be two solutions. Go through the process of incorporating a society, developing the processes, and apply for a concession for DOC to allow caches on DOC land. This may ease the issues with geocaching on public non-DOC land. This option will involve _a lot_ of time and some costs on our behalf.

 

An alternative option is to not place caches on DOC land. This will absolve us of the compliance issues associated with geocaching on DOC land. It will not deal with the issue of other caches which appear to illegally be on public land managed by Territorial Authorities.

 

I should note that there are no issues with virtual activities such as Minutewar or Geodashing.

 

[This message was edited by BigNick on January 27, 2003 at 11:10 AM.]

 

In view of the above I hope a virtual cache could be approved in the mean time. I would replace or archive it as soon as the DOC problem is resolved.

Best Regards

Ray (Navigull)

 

</quote>

 

Based on that I have no problem with posting it. One message I often send after unarchiving a cache is as follows:

 

<quote>

Hi,

 

Your Virtual cache is good to go. Thanks for the explanation., As I mentioned in the archive log there was insufficient information to determine if the location met the guidelines or if a physical cache could not be put there instead. I'm afraid we will archive any and all caches that we're unsure about. The ramifications of posting "lame" virtual caches is just too great. Park managers see what's posted and will point to that as an alternative to the request that a physical cache be permitted in the park they manage. We really don't want geocaching to become predominantly virtual caches. Virtual caches have their place. We want to be sure they stay there. icon_smile.gif

 

You might consider for future postings adding your own notes prefacing the text to explain things in more detail, but making it clear that the approver should delete that extra paragraph before posting the cache. Some are doing that and it speeds the approval and posting process.

 

Enjoy!

erik

</quote>

 

So there you have it - if there is a situation the cache approver should be aware of add it to the text. But be aware that many virtual caches placed because traditional caches "aren't allowed" may ensure that they'll never be allowed. I've run into that very situation, much to my chagrin.

 

Cheers,

 

~the dreaded erik~ icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

Reality though Eric is that you are already aware of the situation here in NZ (New Zealand) with DOC (NZ Governments Department Of Conservation) and this is the third NZ Virtual Geocache on DOC land I'm aware of that you have done this on. Perhaps next time you could think "Is this a NZ virtual cache on DOC land? icon_confused.gif" and contact the placer without archiving it? icon_cool.gif

 

I know the lookout well, and could provide a series of photographs taken from it on my own digital camera within the last 12 months icon_biggrin.gif. It is very unlikely any NZ based approver would knock back a virtual cache as we are only too well aware of the situation with DOC. In fact one of the things DOC requires for caching to receive a MOU (Memorandum Of Understanding) is that caches are approved here in NZ and that the approvers are aware what land is managed by DOC and which areas are suitable and aren't.

 

We now have shape files indicating which land is DOC managed so we can identify these areas, however no arrangment authourising the use of DOC land has been made. We are awaiting the opinion of DOC senior managment on the issue.

 

Hopefully this problem with NZ cache approval will be resolved shortly with Gavin (Rediguana) and I being able to approve the caches. Jeremy gave it the thumbs up some time ago, but as yet it hasn't been implimented. I don't like to pester Jeremy, but I did e-mail him again about it today.

 

Fingers crossed, shortly we will have local cache authourisation and then the long awaited DOC MOU so we can continue geocaching unhindered here in clean green NZ icon_smile.gif

 

Water tastes best when refrigerated and flavoured with fermented barley and hops icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Hopefully this problem with NZ cache approval will be resolved shortly with Gavin (Rediguana) and I being able to approve the caches. Jeremy gave it the thumbs up some time ago, but as yet it hasn't been implimented. I don't like to pester Jeremy, but I did e-mail him again about it today.

 

Fingers crossed, shortly we will have local cache authourisation and then the long awaited DOC MOU so we can continue geocaching unhindered here in clean green NZ icon_smile.gif


 

icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

 

Did I miss the voting process regarding who should be able to approve NZ caches.

 

Also, I am pretty much with Eric on this cache - a reasonably well known nice view should be a traditional cache. So, hurry up DOC.

 

Ciao,

Brent

Link to comment

Well ;I have just logged on to find my cache approved. and to read the latest replies.

My thanks to Erik, for the approval, and to the Kiwis who gave advice.

 

I was not wanting to "stir", just get some guidance as whether my method was appropriate until the DOC issue is resolved.

 

My other cache "What is on the Menu?" is real and is on private land. Permission was sought and gained, for this one.

 

If and when DOC give the OK I will substitute a real one pronto.

 

Navigull

 

p.s. tgsnoopy, I just love that tag line

Link to comment

I like this post on Virtual Caches in the General Forum

 

*******************************

 

WGA

 

Geocacher

posted February 28, 2003 01:48 PM

This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of Interesting places, Interesting monuments/sculptures, Interesting historical markers etc.

 

If its an interesting place you want to lead someone, post it over on www.waypoint.org which IS a database of Interesting things.

 

As virtual caches by definition don't actually have a cache, which is what this activity was created to hunt, there needs to be compelling reasons to qualify as more than just a point-of-interest (POI). If there is a great hunt or hike involved, well then perhaps a virtual might qualify. But a drive-by location, or as this cache owner states ...just steps from a couple of very popular (to the locals anyway) coffee bars and a community centre and on the bike path around the Creek..., just doesn't meet the requirements of a VC to me.

 

As the guidelines state, a view is a view, a park is a park, and to paraphrase, a sculpture is a sculpture, not a cache.

 

__________________

-Alan

*************************

 

Ciao,

Brent

Link to comment

Actually the voting process has been mentioned and hopefully will be implimented at some stage in the future. However as Gavin and I are the existing NZ moderators it would be logical to have us as the cache approvers as well for the moment.

 

I do not know how Jeremy feels about his moderators/approvers being changed from time to time after a democratic election in another GPS organisation, I guess we will address that in the future at some stage. It has been pointed out to him that we are considering this, however I didn't get any indication it would or wouldn't be a problem (he is a VERY busy man).

 

If/When the GPS Society becomes a reality then these things will all be addressed at that time. Meantime, I'm sorry if someone takes offence at the fact the existing moderators become responsible for approval as well. Whilst I for one (and Gavin will as well, although he might not be as outspoken) have my opinions, I will always go with popular opinion should a situation arise where it becomes an issue.

 

Meantime, we aren't yet (to the best of my knowledge) able to approve caches (we may in fact already have the ability, but don't know how to access it). First things first, lets just get the approvals done locally.

 

If I'm too outspoken and opinionated for everyones liking, someone could perhaps start a thread on the subject, and then perhaps we could organise a poll on the subject of who everyone thought should be our moderators. Hey, I've got broad shoulders, don't hold back, if I'm annoying people, I can't adjust my behaviour if I'm not aware it's causing offence.

 

With regard to the GPS Society possibly not being formed (I know someone will pick up on the If/When), nothing is set in concrete, it will be an expensive process to set up the society, with ongoing expenses, if we can negotiate a MOU without creating a society then one may not be formed, however, by the same token, one may be formed for other purposes, geocaching issues with DOC aside. In the meantime, until we hear from Gareth which way the opinion he's awaiting goes, we just patiently wait, and wait.. You get the idea. And yes, it is taking an awfully long time. However patience is a virtue, and good things take time icon_biggrin.gif.

 

Water tastes best when refrigerated and flavoured with fermented barley and hops icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Actually the voting process has been mentioned and hopefully will be implimented at some stage in the future. However as Gavin and I are the existing NZ moderators it would be logical to have us as the cache approvers as well for the moment.


I would suggest recontacting Jeremy at contact@Groundspeak.com. I suspect that with spring and summer approaching in the northern hemisphere overall geocache submissions will pick up to the point that the help would be most welcome.

 

Jeremy wants to regionalize the approval process, and would like to employ approvers active in a local geocaching organization knowledgable both in the local limitations and the global geocaching.com requirements.

 

In the meantime, if you submit a cache limited by your DOC requirements please state that on the cache page to avoid delays in posting.

 

Do remember that "archiving" a cache is done to clear the approval queue and permit others to be posted. If does not mean the cache has been rejected in any manner - there are just questions raised but left unanswered. "Unarchiving" is just as easy for the cache approver to do. icon_smile.gif

 

Cheers,

erik

Link to comment

icon_cool.gifWhoa - back up the bus Magnum

 

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for yah Snoops. icon_wink.gif

 

I found this bit of Eric's post interesting

 

quote:
Jeremy wants to regionalize the approval process, and would like to employ approvers active in a local geocaching organization knowledgable both in the local limitations and the global geocaching.com requirements

 

With regard to a GPS Society - it could be up and running next week. It just needs a few hours to trash out 6 pages of objects and a small registration fee. Subs per member could be as low as $1 - ongoing expenses would need to be governed by what the members want the aims and objects of the Society to be.

 

Ciao,

Brent

Link to comment

Sorry Brent, But the fact you had placed the comment "Did I miss the voting process regarding who should be able to approve NZ caches." in bold, I interpreted it as you were unhappy about not being involved in a democratic process and subsequently with Gavin and myself being the moderators/approvers. Please accept my apologies icon_redface.gif.

 

However, should the fact that I misinterprit things like that or just be to outspoken or whatever, don't be afraid to point it out. I won't be editing or deleting my previous posting for that reason. However one thing I'm not afraid of is admiting I'm wrong and apologising, which appears to be something some Kiwi's seem to lack.

 

Eric, if you are aware of it or not, archiving those virtual caches awaiting approval is quite insulting and causes significant offence to the cacher creating it (Well, with us Kiwi's is does). You have encountered this before, and like I mentioned earlier please contact the cacher for further information before archiving the cache. If Archiving is absolutely neccessary, then a better explaination to the placer explaining why it was neccessary to minimise offence would be a good idea, as will addressing a modification to the process so that it wasn't neccessary (It's something I will be looking at seriously If/When I finally get the ability to approve caches).

 

You made a comment "Jeremy wants to regionalize the approval process, and would like to employ approvers active in a local geocaching organization knowledgable both in the local limitations and the global geocaching.com requirements." This might concern some cachers, as far as I understand it, we don't get paid to do it, however we are given Charter Membership status without having to pay for the membership. I've chosen to pay anyway as I consider the sport is worthy of what I consider a reasonably cheap membership (Compared to my fuel and cache material costs).

 

This string is getting a good airing which is good to see considering of late it's been very quiet. At the very least people will have got an idea of my personality and how my buttons can be pushed icon_wink.gif

 

I haven't done much caching for a while, but hope to be back into it again shortly. Now if we can just get this DOC issue sorted icon_biggrin.gif.

 

********************************

 

Water tastes best when refrigerated and flavoured with fermented barley and hops icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

My twopence worth...

 

For me (and popsit) the attraction is not being too sure where you are going and actually having to hunt for something that is hidden. Reminds me of treasure hunts when I was a kid, something magic in that for us..

 

Virtual caches just dont do it for me.. The placing of a cache indicates that someone took some time and trouble and personal expense. Knowing that gives the cache value to me..

 

I know the lookout Navigull refers to well..on the top of the saddle between Kuritau and Taumarunui..It deserved to be listed as a place of interest but to me it is not a 'geocache' location. The DOC approval issue in respect of that location is a non starter.. It is a tourist rest stop, toilet area, sealed roadway, structure location,come rubbish dump.. The hiding of a cache just doesnt compare to the environmental impact occuring there!! Not even the most extreme greenie could argue a case for banning a cache from that location!!

 

All argument about damage and 'environmental care' issues are based on the presence of the people not the cache so how is a virtual cache solving this?

 

At no time have I seen any posting by DOC indicating that the placing of caches should cease in respect of areas like this..vague claims of illegality have no foundation and when pressed on this issue DOC have backed away completely.

 

I am not sure that virtual caches add any value at all to geocaching and maybe they should have their own section?

 

Just my thoughts for the night.. Be well all...and welcome to Geocaching Navigull.. icon_smile.gif

 

Russell ORR

Link to comment

<quote>

Eric, if you are aware of it or not, archiving those virtual caches awaiting approval is quite insulting and causes significant offence to the cacher creating it (Well, with us Kiwi's is does). You have encountered this before, and like I mentioned earlier please contact the cacher for further information before archiving the cache. </quote>

 

Quick comment before rushing off to work: We used to put all caches on "HOLD", with a message to the cache owner. They would sit in the queue for days, blocking others. The approver would have to e-mail a second and third time awaiting resolution. This bogged down the entire approval process.

 

We found that archiving the cache produced a quick reply from those who truly cared. Those who really didn't care didn't reply and that was the end of it. "Archiving" is perhaps the wrong term here. It just clears the cache out of the queue and moves it to the admin's "My Cache Page". "Unarchiving" is easy enough to do when questions are resolved or edits made.

 

Regards,

erik -geocaching.com admin

Link to comment

Ah, now if you could just explain it like that to the poor person who's just got his new virtual cache archived, them it probably wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps you could use cut and paste to insert an explination along those lines next time? Thanks icon_smile.gif

 

********************************

 

Water tastes best when refrigerated and flavoured with fermented barley and hops icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

As of this evening NZ caches can be approved locally. I already have this ability and Gavin (rediguana) should also receive it shortly. Hopefully our being restricted to virtuals on DOC managed land for the moment won't result in this archiving problem any longer, heck as we are in the same time zone, we might be a little quicker too icon_smile.gif .

 

********************************

 

Water tastes best when refrigerated and flavoured with fermented barley and hops icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...