Call for Regional Representation

[+mrcpu]

Executive Summary

 

In order for the Geocaching Community to police itself, people who actually know local areas and laws need to take part in the process of approving and archiving caches. In addition to improving our public image, this would improve the quality of the game, both in the cachers interaction with the site, and with the quality of caches placed.

 

Details

 

While watching a number of threads regarding people planting caches on private or non-cache friendly public lands, it has occured to me that the one spot where this could have been prevented is during the approval process.

 

While Jeremy's crew are pretty fast at getting back to people when approving caches, they do not have the local knowledge required to approve caches properly and to screen for violations of local law or etiquitte. For example I saw a cache approved in my area where the cache was a micro placed right in the middle of a cemetery. Surprisingly, the cache was approved. If someone local to my area where to be approving the caches, this probably wouldn't have been approved.

 

I would like to propose that regional representation be part of the cache approval process. For example, having one or two people who represent Canada and do approvals for Canadian caches would be a good start. As time goes by and volenteers are picked up, provincial and then regional reps would be approving caches and dealing with complaints.

 

It is my belief that a regional rep might have caught the cache placed on an archeological site in Arizona, or at least, would know enought about the area to be a good person for the reporter to talk to.

 

There are a couple of things that would need to take place. Firstly, a call for volenteers would go out. Secondly, those volenteers would be listed on a page where cachers could go to and find out who their local rep is. Thirdly, while not necessarily right away, some programatic method of handeling communication and escallation of disagreements should be developed to aid in dealing with issues.

 

Essentially what I see is a group of local reps dealing with caches and those local reps would forward problems up to their provincial rep, who in turn would forward problems to the Country rep who would talk to "Jeremy" directly.

 

So.... Now for your say. Do you think there should be a hierachical organization of representative volenteers assisting with cache approval, archiving, and disagreements?

 

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

[+Bear and Ting]

... in that the people who know the area best are the locals. Even then, though, they do not know it all. I've lived in central Indiana for many years and cannot tell you where every site and histrical site might be. But, I can find the township trustee's of these areas and ask questions.

 

Bear

 

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

[Dinoprophet]

Personally, I think it's a great idea. But I anticipate a lot of resistance to it. There are people upset enough that the existing administration has power over what they do with their caches (completely forgetting that it is their website and they offer these services for free, of course). Even more people who don't like the idea of asking permission to begin with.

 

Maybe something less formal would be more widely accepted? Regional consultants whom the admins can ask about cases where they're unsure?

 

At any rate, it was bound to come up sooner or later. Let the vast number of responses begin!

 

Incidentally, I'm not sure cemeteries are off-limits. I found a cache just yesterday in a cemetery, and the description, which I have to assume the admins read, made no secret about it.

[Dinoprophet]

Personally, I think it's a great idea. But I anticipate a lot of resistance to it. There are people upset enough that the existing administration has power over what they do with their caches (completely forgetting that it is their website and they offer these services for free, of course). Even more people who don't like the idea of asking permission to begin with.

 

Maybe something less formal would be more widely accepted? Regional consultants whom the admins can ask about cases where they're unsure?

 

At any rate, it was bound to come up sooner or later. Let the vast number of responses begin!

 

Incidentally, I'm not sure cemeteries are off-limits. I found a cache just yesterday in a cemetery, and the description, which I have to assume the admins read, made no secret about it.

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrcpu:

 

While Jeremy's crew are pretty fast at getting back to people when approving caches, they do not have the local knowledge required to approve caches properly and to screen for violations of local law or etiquitte. For example I saw a cache approved in my area where the cache was a micro placed right in the middle of a cemetery. Surprisingly, the cache was approved. If someone local to my area where to be approving the caches, this probably wouldn't have been approved.

---

 

I understand your position, and like Bear, agree to a point, but this is not a good example of where a local admin would have improved the situation. Physical caches in cemeteries have been frowned upon in all areas for some time, and the fact that this one got approved had nothing to do with whether or not the admin was from Toronto. It simply looks like an instance where a cache slid through by mistake.

 

That said, I think that more volunteers providing more local and regional feedback and points of contact are a good thing. That has already begun for English caches, and I imagine that it will eventually happen for other areas as well as the game continues to grow.

 

Moun10Bike's Geocaching Pages

[+OzzieSan]

this is already in place. You have every right to contact the admins on caches you would consider to be in violation of any Federal, State, County, City, GeoCaching… rules, regulations and or guidelines (and any I missed). Or if you feel there is an unfavorable environmental impact (caused by the cache being there). The following two quotes are taken from Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

 

quote:

---

Keep in mind that there is no precedent for placing caches. If a cache has been posted in the past and break any rules listed below, you are welcome to report it. However, we honor the posting of older caches that came in before the rule was issued.

---

 

quote:

---

If your cache has been archived make sure to read the log to see why. If you want to dispute your archived cache, feel free to post a message in the forums to see what others think. If the majority believes it should be posted, your cache may be unarchived.

---

 

I think the guidelines do a pretty good job spelling it out.

 

So my answer would be, It's already in place.

[irvingdog]

This should be fun! It will probably seem alot like trying to get preschoolers to line up and stay that way.

 

Getting agreement out of this crowd. Feh!

 

It's a game folks..........

[irvingdog]

This should be fun! It will probably seem alot like trying to get preschoolers to line up and stay that way.

 

Getting agreement out of this crowd. Feh!

 

It's a game folks..........

[Pluckers]

Perhaps a golden rule process can be deployed, where log entries have a checkbox that means "I think this cache met all approval criteria listed below". Cache owners never see results, but Jeremy and staff can always do queries on caches with questionable ratios of finds to approvals and scrutinize them more closely, reading the logs etc...

Is it better to have the checkbox checked by default, or not and colored in red so people don't skip over it by accident? Or maybe it's not binary, but a star system, so if someone isn't quite sure...

I think coding a solution that involves everybody is way more robust, since there will always be problems organizing humans for this sort of thing, especially considering that interests change over time. Less squabbling too I believe.

I think a list of questions for the approval checkbox right on the log page helps raise awareness across the board as well.

[+Olar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

Physical caches in cemeteries have been frowned upon in all areas for some time, and the fact that this one got approved had nothing to do with whether or not the admin was from Toronto. It simply looks like an instance where a cache slid through by mistake.

---

Very likely correct, however the odds are better that a regional approver will have a good topo and/or street map showing the location as a cemetery where someone far from the region may not.

How about maintaining the system as is but possibly establishing a list of regional volunteers to serve as consultants when deemed necessary. The existing approver could contact him/her to verify things like suitability of proposed cache location.

Thats my 2 cents worth. Back to work.

Olar

 

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olar:

 

How about maintaining the system as is but possibly establishing a list of regional volunteers to serve as consultants when deemed necessary. The existing approver could contact him/her to verify things like suitability of proposed cache location.

---

 

The admins have their own private forum for discussing cache submissions that might be problematic, and generally any regionally-specific restrictions or issues come to light there. I guess I wonder how would we determine when it was "deemed necessary" to consult with regional geocachers on a given submission. If a cemetery (or other restricted area, like a "secret" archaeological site) did not show up on the maps the admins use when approving caches, then there would be no indication that local geocachers needed to be called in for consultation. You soon head down the road of having a committee approving each and every cache, which as you can imagine would get unwieldy very quickly.

 

Like Team 5-oh! said, I think that we already have some solutions in place to correct mistakes made by non-local admins. You can email an admin or post a thread in the forums to call attention to possibly problematic cache, or you can post a "Cache Should Be Archived" log on the cache page (those logs get emailed to the admins). I would just hate to see this game become drowned in bureaucracy.

 

Moun10Bike's Geocaching Pages

[+Harrald]

I've been on quite a few boards where the admins are anonymous. I think if you start posting who the new volunteers are you will find quite a bit of name calling and accusations of favoritism. Also "Sending out a call" for volunteers is un-necessary. If the present admins want new blood to help they will ask those who they feel will act accordingly. While there is a group that would love to jump in and (as they see it) help they might not be the best choice for this position. There's an old saying about the president of the USA "The best person for the job is the one who doesn't want it".

 

That said

 

I think the system works fine as it is. It's always possible to ask the forum posting community to add their feedback on a cache. It's also been shown that even an cache idea that is overwhelmingly disliked by the geocaching forum posters can be talked about without being locked. This kind of open discussion is all that is needed to continue the game growing and improving.

 

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

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

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

[+Sandrich]

It had to happen, alas! The problem with our fast growing sport is that it is a fast growing sport. In the absence of any real authority, we have been a remarkably well behaved group of people. This is probably the truest example of a Democracy we will ever participate in! So I find myself hoping we don't need more of a governing body, but realizing that we will get one anyway!

Probably Jeremy will pick some reliable people to help him with the avalanche of new 'caches. But it might be good idea for us to start this discussion, before it is answered without our input. In short, I vote "no".

 

____________________________________________________________

"To me, everything is mathematics"

- Rene Descatres

[+mrcpu]

So there seems to be a number of ideas:

 

Firstly, regional consultants that the "admins" could ask for help from.

 

Secondly, the idea of having some way to flag a cache for inspection AFTER it has slipped throught the cracks.

 

Here is what I think:

 

-I agree that the idea of asking someone local for help is good but again, when would the "admin" person decide to ask?

 

-There are already volenteers who do cache approval. According to one who approved one of my caches recently he does 30 hours per week!!! A volenteer should be doing only 4 or 5 hours per week so in my mind these guys are both heros and overworked!!! Share the workload with regional approvers and less will slip through. Obviously if a regional approver has complaints lodged against them they can be thanked for their effort and then let go.

 

-I am somewhat reluctant to "tattle tale" on a fellow cacher, and the idea of putting a "Archive This" log on a cache seems somewhat rude. What about adding another log type besides "Found It" etc. Call it "Private Note". This private note would not be shown on the cache page unless you were logged in as the cache owner, note placer or an admin, could not be deleted by the cache owner AND could then be queried by admin types so that an admin could check for "Private Notes" for all caches in his region. It would allow someone to politely say "Um Excuse me but I have a problem with your cache" without putting up a public note on a cache.

 

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

[+nelsotob]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irvingdog:

This should be fun! It will probably seem alot like trying to get preschoolers to line up and stay that way.

 

Getting agreement out of this crowd. Feh!

 

It's a game folks..........

---

 

Glad to see that someone here remembers that it is a game. Additionally someone who isn't trying to take themselves so seriously. I mentioned the word beer/pub in a cache I wanted to set up and man you should have seen the fallout from that.

[+briansnat]

We seem to be moving towards this. My latest caches have been approved by the "NJ Admin". Pennsy now has a "Keystone Approver".

 

quote:

---

I mentioned the word beer/pub in a cache I wanted to set up and man you should have seen the fallout from that.

---

That wasn't the reason for the fallout and you know it.

 

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

[+erik88l-r]

quote:

---

We seem to be moving towards this. My latest caches have been approved by the "NJ Admin". Pennsy now has a "Keystone Approver".

---

 

We currently have 32 cache approvers. A few may be on a break or a sabatical now and then, but we do have good regional representation now.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

[Keystone]

Besides being the shyest and sweetest of the PowerPuff Girls, I'm one of the new "regional approvers." These concerns have been expressed before, and geocaching.com has responded by adding LOTS of very knowledgeable approvers who are personally familiar with the areas they cover. Not only that, the "veterans" like Erik and Mtn-Man are extremely helpful in keeping us lined up in a straight line, and in pitching in wherever help is needed. Their knowledge of specific requirements worldwide is amazing.

 

As the volume of cache placements and the interactions with land managers/permit systems both increase, regionalizing the approval process was inevitable, and it's a good idea. When volume justifies a new addition, someone is brought aboard. I'm living proof of that. And I think the admins recognize that Canada is fast approaching the point where more help is needed. Please be patient.

 

PS - I would've approved the cemetery micro here in Pennsylvania. Buttercup would have archived it. She's hard-core.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[+Renegade Knight]

Blossom has her moments and is every bit the warrior as Buttercup. Not that I've ever watched the powerpuff girls.

 

Still I like the new breed of approvers using admin sock puppet accounts. That way they can be hard core without personal reprisals. You just have to remember that your sock pupet account is your firewall for the flames.

 

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

Wherever you go there you are.