Jump to content

Deer Valley Rock Art Center and General Arizona Warning


Bryan
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

This thread contains lessons for all. There was a virtual cache located on the Grounds of the DVRAC that was posted on the site. In one of the logs, there was a photo of a young girl with her arm resting on a petroglyph rock. When someone from the art center requested the 'removal' of the virtual cache, Jeremy attempted to explain to her the difference between a virtual cache and a physical cache. Anyway, she got a bit upset and here is the subsequent conversation. In my personal opinion, I disagree with her approach (as you can read below) but, in the interest of fairness and making this game better for all, I am soliciting your feedback on her approach and ours so that we can hopefully fare better in the future. (Her name has been removed by us. The most recent email is at the top so you may want to start at the bottom) -Rothstafari

 

From: "Cache Inquiries"

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:32:27 -0800

Local: Tues, Feb 18 2003 10:32 pm

Duration: 54:07 minutes

Subject: [#634] Re: Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Dear xxxxxxx,

 

Thank you for your further consideration of this issue.

 

Assuming that you'd like me to pass your message along to all potential

Arizona Geocachers, rather than paraphrase, I am going to post the full

content of your note below to the Geocaching forums on our Website. I'll

remove your name and position, assuming this is your preference (if I am

incorrect, let me know and I'd be happy to include it).

 

Posting the note is probably the most effective means of alerting

Geocachers to the new rules in Arizona, keeping Geocachers from placing

caches there without permission and helping them to understand how the

center feels about their potential patronage.

 

Please note once again that our company does not place caches, we maintain

a cache listing service for caches and written content submitted by

others. Our company does not advocate breaking any law, we merely allow

people to post constitutionally protected content on our website.

 

Regarding the Dam cache, I am sure it comes as a surprise to you, but we

appreciate your notification of this issue. We agree with the proposition

that Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing a

cache and are always willing to work with land managers and owners to

resolve potential issues. Without question, this cache should be removed.

However, since there are 40,000+ cache listings, if possible, we'd

appreciate some help further identifying the cache specifically so we can

contact the owner. Coordinates, a website link or, I suppose, the

eventual contact from the Maricopa County Flood Control will undoubtedly

help.

 

Regarding your statement, "we do not think your website is the kind of PR

the Center is seeking.", quite frankly, I feel that this statement is an

insult to all of us and, in fact, take it personally. It amazes me to

think that you would so openly judge and potentially punish thousands by

the actions of a small few. The majority of the Geocaching community is

made up of good people and, if your stance would be held, you'll never

know it.

 

Thank you again for your note. With your continued assistance, perhaps we

can prevent Geocachers from enjoying the balance of natural resources that

Arizona has to offer. Please let me know if you have any further

suggestions.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bryan Roth

Groundspeak

 

 

Original Message Follows:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:02:10 EST

 

Mr. Roth;

 

Thank you for removing the Rock Art Center from your website. Your

suggestion to remove the "offensive" photo and post guidelines for

geocachers

is not acceptable at this point. The photo, in fact, is beyond offensive.

 

Also, you have ignored the issue that you did not request permission from

the

Center of Maricopa County Flood Control to place a "virtual cache" on your

 

website. I also do not think that the cache on Adobe Dam has permission to

be

there. Your website encourages geocachers to hike the dam to find the

cache.

There are "No Trespassing" signs posted all over the dam. Trespassers

could

receive either a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I have contacted

 

Flood Control once again about that cache. Do not be surprised if it is

removed. Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing

a

cache if any kind. New rules are in place here in Arizona.

 

I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has

attracted

some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR

the

Center is seeking.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center

 

From: xxxxxxxxx

To: contact@Groundspeak.com

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:02:10 EST

Local: Tues, Feb 18 2003 8:02 pm

Subject: Re: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Mr. Roth;

 

Thank you for removing the Rock Art Center from your website. Your

suggestion to remove the "offensive" photo and post guidelines for geocachers

is not acceptable at this point. The photo, in fact, is beyond offensive.

 

Also, you have ignored the issue that you did not request permission from the

Center of Maricopa County Flood Control to place a "virtual cache" on your

website. I also do not think that the cache on Adobe Dam has permission to be

there. Your website encourages geocachers to hike the dam to find the cache.

There are "No Trespassing" signs posted all over the dam. Trespassers could

receive either a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I have contacted

Flood Control once again about that cache. Do not be surprised if it is

removed. Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing a

cache if any kind. New rules are in place here in Arizona.

 

I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has attracted

some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR the

Center is seeking.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center

 

From: "Cache Inquiries"

To: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:06:11 -0800

Local: Mon, Feb 17 2003 10:06 pm

Duration: 25:50 minutes

Subject: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Dear xxxxxxxx,

 

Your email was passed along to me for follow up.

 

As requested, I will remove the offending virtual cache from our website.

Before I do, I was hoping that you'd consider reading these 4 recent

'cache logs' written by geocachers:

 

February 5 by Ranger Team

"...Nice day to enjoy the rock center with the children. Thanks for

bringing us here."

 

January 5 by TeamBlunder

"Was very interesting walking through and learning something about the

Petroglyphs...thanks so much for bringing us here.

Thanks for a fun cache I could do with my boys."

 

January 4 by AZAppels

"very nice location. after paying entry fee ($5.00, senior & students

$3.00) the museum portion is very interesting. the 1/4 mile walk is truly

a sign from the past. The ranger was great explaining what was seen."

 

January 3 by WEFINDUM

"Neat place to visit. We had no idea this was here and so close"

 

My point is that it seems as though your are judging the environmentally

friendly geocaching community by the actions portrayed in one photo of a

young girl. Now, I don't think either of us would believe that this is

the first or last time someone didn't exactly follow the rules, but to

punish the rest of these paying families, senior citizens and individuals

for this action would be unfair, to say the least.

 

This virtual cache draws people to see something wonderful that they would

not otherwise see. Surely there is a better way to address this issue.

Personally, I'd hate to have Geocachers miss out on this collection.

 

Anyway, a suggestion: What if we remove that specific photo from the site

and include a note to geocachers who visit? The note can include rules,

site regulations, etc. I am open to other suggestions.

 

Alternatively, we can remove the site as requested. In the interim, I

will temporarily disable this cache on the site and remove the offending

photo. Please let me know your preference and feel free to call or write

with any additional questions or concerns.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

Sincerely,

 

Bryan Roth

Groundspeak, Inc.

P: 206.302.7721 x103

F: 206.374.8161

 

 

Original Message Follows:

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

From: xxxxxxx

Subject: Request for removal from your website

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:42:46 -0500

 

Jeremy;

 

I have emailed you about the virtual cache at the Deer Valley Rock Art

Center. You have been quite condescending during our previous

communications. Yes, I know what "virtual" is as well as a "cache" and

"geocaching". Thank you for the lesson in vocabulary! You seemed to avoid

the fact that no one asked permission to place this virtual cache on our

property and on your website.

 

The Center recently had visitors who learned about our site from your

website. On your website there is a photo of a girl leaning on one of the

petroglyphs. Visitors are told to not touch the glyphs. "Touch" includes

leaning, sitting, and standing on the glyphs. Her arm touches the top of

the glyph!

 

This email is a request to remove the virtual cache from the Center, and

to remove the Center entirely from your website. You did not seek

permission about the virtual cache, and now this photo disturbs me

greatly! Harkening back to an earlier email, many geocachers do not follow

proper equitte at archaeological sites. This picture reinforces that!

 

Please remove the Deer Valley Rock Art Center from your website. I hope

this request will not turn into a legal matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center

Link to comment

My original posts were missing, but it was so odd to me that someone would request the removal of a virtual cache. I thought she was missing the point somehow and tried to explain it to her several times.

 

After reviewing the cache it was discovered there was an entrance fee, which usually wouldn't get it listed anyway, but the freedom of speech point was important for me. However, after a few messages back and forth with this person I rewrote my response several times before finally giving it to Bryan, who can be more rational than myself.

 

Thanks Bryan for being even handed on this. My response would have been less gracious.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

From reading the messages back and forth between you guys this person sounds like one of those people without full knowledge of something immediately form an opinion about something and that opinion can't be budged.

 

My question to her would be, "O.K. so if one visitor to the park is found touching a glyph and that person is a non-geocacher than should ALL people be banned from the park?"

 

While it is an unfortunate reality people in general will focus on the negative. This person in question seemed oblivious to the descriptions of the last several cachers that visited the park (paying an entrance fee that helps keep the park funded) and just wants to focus on the one picture.

 

While it's sad but true you could have had 20 cachers go through the park and pick up garbage and the 21st person through left a beer can that 21st person is the only one that would be noticed.

Link to comment

This kind of person and/or organization is nothing new to gun owners. The irrational fear and phobic reactions of a minority to what is a legal, and in our case a constitutionally protected right, is always amusing.

 

I suggest you do what us gun owners do. Comply with their request. And make it known that this business is not friendly to our hobby. Let word of mouth get the message out, Geocachers not welcome there. Then don't go there, and let your family and friends know about it and why.

 

It works! Ask Rosie O'Donal, K-Mart, Michael Dell (We ain't gettin a DELL dude!) AT&T, and Janet Reno to name a few. Dell was especially spectacular in their back-peddling once the gun owners boycotted them and listed it nationally.

 

I look forward to seeing where this goes. And I swear I WILL NOT go to that park the next time I visit AZ, which is a few times a year. In fact, I may just avoid AZ and look to East Texas a little more often!

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

Well, if the virtual cache really was located in a "no tresspassing" area, in which not even fee-paying private citizens can go, I'd think they were in the right in requesting that the virtual be removed. icon_confused.gif

 

If, however, the virtual is in an area which can be accessed by private citizens, fee-paying or otherwise, virtual stays.

 

Seems reasonable to me...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

Well, _if_ the virtual cache really was located in a "no tresspassing" area, in which not even fee-paying private citizens can go, I'd think they were in the right in requesting that the virtual be removed. icon_confused.gif

 

If, however, the virtual is in an area which can be accessed by private citizens, fee-paying or otherwise, virtual stays.

 

Seems reasonable to me...


 

I agree. Sounds like the fans of VC's should have to have the fee structure and the lawful access status down before they have their VC's approved.

 

This person was fairly rude about her request. I would like to see the photo to see what made it so offensive. Perhaps the cache owner ran afoul of one of those "keep the wilderness safe from everyone else" kinds of ecofascists.

 

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

Link to comment

I wonder if this person really has the authority to speak for the Rock Art Center, or is possibly just an over-zealous volunteer worker.

 

Geocachers have been getting an undeserved bad rep for disturbing archeological sites in AZ this year, and it appears we've got a few individuals going out of their way to make life rough on us.

 

It's a shame since caching is relatively Low impact compared to other forms of outdoor recreation I can think of.

Link to comment

I live right down the road from this place. That stinks. I hadnt hit the cache yet, but will reconsider now.

 

I also live right below Adobe dam. I would have placed a cache there myself if there wasnt one already. However there are plenty of locations just below the dam that arent private or restricted. She is correct the dam is posted well.

 

I walk up there all the time.

 

Being an avid hiker I am wondering if the cache I have planned today is ok. It is near the dam and in a area frequented by hikers, but possibly not GEOCACHE friendly.

 

Why on earth would it be removed from gecaching.com? I can visit and post a pic to my personal site right? Why not here? Thats odd and kinda a lame request by them.

 

I can see asking that we post a warning to not touch the petrogliphs.... Which any good geocacher wouldnt.. An arm over a rock which contains one isnt bad as long as the feet werent in protected land when the arm was on the rock...

 

Anyway I wont go unless there is a cache.

Link to comment

All in all a virtual cache exists nowhere but in cyberspace. When you get right down to it I nor anyone else on the planet "Ownes" their coordinates. Those exist as defined by our Government (and others) and are used to describe locations.

 

They have an address they don't own either. You probably won't see her yelling at the county (who normally sets the address for a location) about not having permision.

 

None is asked, none is needed.

 

Her only recourse is to claim "Geostalking" once they figure out that that's a crime. (hence not having virtual caches in private homes)

 

If there is a reason to visit, then people are invited (and the admission fee removes any other doubt) and she has no claim, no case and should be shut down and another virtual cache created so people like me who might not have otherwise stopped by to see the place will notice it beyond all othe other billboard clutter that I have to contend with in my travels.

 

I could go on, but won't.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

All in all a virtual cache exists nowhere but in cyberspace. When you get right down to it I nor anyone else on the planet "Ownes" their coordinates. Those exist as defined by our Government (and others) and are used to describe locations.


 

I believe it is unethical to post coordinates to an area on private or restricted property, to which private citizens can't gain access without trespassing. By posting a virtual cache on such property, it encourages people to violate the property.

 

If you say that posting a virtual cache doesn't encourage people to go to the coordinates, then you sir are a few fries short of a happy meal.

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong because I really do appreciate Jeremy and Rostafari's extraordinary efforts to reason with this 'person' and save the cache but I think this should have handled by the cache owner. Did anyone even try to contact the cache owner? It should be their responsibility and their problem whenever there is an issue like this with a cache. Jeremy & company should only have to become involved with these disputes as a last resort in such cases where the cache owner fails to resolve the problem. I think that they should sanction irresponsible cache owners who fail to resolve an issue with a cache because they no doubt have better things to do that require real genius such as making improvements to this site.

 

I think that the site can be improved to make it easier for concerned persons who are not geocachers to contact the site or cache owner directly with their issues. They might not get so angry as this. I addressed this in another post in the forums. Please excuse me for not knowing how to Markwell:

 

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=6770936793&m=7320915155

 

I don't think that it would have mattered much in this particular case because this 'person' obviously has 'issues' with the idea of geocaching in general and probably a lot of other 'issues' as well. BTW: I did some digging and it would appear that the other cache mentioned is probably okay. It seems that this person is afraid that geocachers will be going there to attack another petroglyph with chisels.

 

Johnny

Link to comment

When ever I have a conflict with someone in another company, say, when they refuse to pay for services rendered for whatever reason, I stop dealing with them and contact the highest person I can find. "...someone from the art center..." just wouldn't cut it with me. I'd request the park director to contact me and let us talk. Dealing with underlings a lot of times will get you nowhere. It's been my experience when you bring in the head honchos, they either can deal with you openly and politely, as long as you are, or they will tell their subordinate to deal with you.

 

It's not as if directors are some absentee manager, they are hands-on. That's why they are there.

 

I can almost guarantee you'll get dealt with better by the park director. Not saying the outcome will be any different, but at least you'll find someone who can see a bigger picture than her own little closed world.

 

Oh, and how did this person come to know about this picture in the first place?

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Is it just me, or is this a loaded statement from Bryan:

 

"With your continued assistance, perhaps we can prevent Geocachers from enjoying the balance of natural resources that Arizona has to offer."

 

Anyway, Bryan, looks like you did all you could. My thought is that maybe if the owner went to this place in person, and with the same attitude tried to speak with someone there to get permission, something might come of it.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I liked the part, "...helping them to understand how the

center feels about their potential patronage."

 

What some of these people have failed, or refuse, to understand I probably would have never heard of some these parks, much less been there, paid fees, or even bought yearly passes, if it weren't for geocaching. I think that goes for a lot of others, as well.

 

This hobby is getting larger and larger, and so is the clout that goes with it.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Is it just me, or is this a loaded statement from Bryan:

 

"With your continued assistance, perhaps we can prevent Geocachers from enjoying the balance of natural resources that Arizona has to offer."


No, it wasn't just you who noticed that, Jamie. It's one of the most cleverly written sentences I've seen in quite some time. As an attorney, I write letters like this all day long.... extremely polite on the surface, but once you read it closely, the words actually say "you're a jerk!"

 

Great job, Bryan.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

Link to comment

Just in case anyone was interested, I think I found the relevent cache waypoint numbers:

 

A Sign from the Past V: GCBCD5

Check out the pic of the cache owners on their profile page. Sinister looking, aren't they?

 

HEDPETH: GC1AFC

I contacted the cache owner to give him/her a heads up on these goings on. It looks to me like this cache is perfectly legit but let's give the owner a chance to check his story on the signs. Let the owner handle it!

 

Johnny

Link to comment

I just posted a VC, at an Arizona petroglyph site on the Colorado River.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=55065

 

I didn't realize what a terrible thing I was doing. I thought I clearly mentioned the sacred significance to the native American's heritage.

 

I didn't realize that I needed permission to recommend a beautiful and historical location to my friends. I wonder if the outfitter who rented canoes to 400 boy scouts and leaders had permission to recommend stopping at such a delicate site????

 

I will immediately archive the cache if asked, but I am not happy with the response from the person in Phoenix.

 

Dave_W6DPS

Horrible, Terrible, Inconsiderate Geocriminal....

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

Link to comment

It would appear there is a lesson here---one that the Rock Art Center did not really want to understand what a "virtual cache" really is. In this case there was nothing hidden, only an invitation to explore the museum and to understand what it means. Rather short sighted on their part as this actually increased interest in the museum. I for one would probably never have gone had it not been for the virtual cashe. The other lesson is that in finding all caches the finder must respect whatever rules govern the location. If there are signs saying DO NOT TOUCH then we must not touch. Shame on the person that did and ruined an excellent site for everyone else.

quote:
Originally posted by Rothstafari:

This thread contains lessons for all. There was a virtual cache located on the Grounds of the DVRAC that was posted on the site. In one of the logs, there was a photo of a young girl with her arm resting on a petroglyph rock. When someone from the art center requested the 'removal' of the virtual cache, Jeremy attempted to explain to her the difference between a virtual cache and a physical cache. Anyway, she got a bit upset and here is the subsequent conversation. In my personal opinion, I disagree with her approach (as you can read below) but, in the interest of fairness and making this game better for all, I am soliciting your feedback on her approach and ours so that we can hopefully fare better in the future. (Her name has been removed by us. The most recent email is at the top so you may want to start at the bottom) -Rothstafari

 

From: "Cache Inquiries"

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:32:27 -0800

Local: Tues, Feb 18 2003 10:32 pm

Duration: 54:07 minutes

Subject: [#634] Re: Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Dear xxxxxxx,

 

Thank you for your further consideration of this issue.

 

Assuming that you'd like me to pass your message along to all potential

Arizona Geocachers, rather than paraphrase, I am going to post the full

content of your note below to the Geocaching forums on our Website. I'll

remove your name and position, assuming this is your preference (if I am

incorrect, let me know and I'd be happy to include it).

 

Posting the note is probably the most effective means of alerting

Geocachers to the new rules in Arizona, keeping Geocachers from placing

caches there without permission and helping them to understand how the

center feels about their potential patronage.

 

Please note once again that our company does not place caches, we maintain

a cache listing service for caches and written content submitted by

others. Our company does not advocate breaking any law, we merely allow

people to post constitutionally protected content on our website.

 

Regarding the Dam cache, I am sure it comes as a surprise to you, but we

appreciate your notification of this issue. We agree with the proposition

that Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing a

cache and are always willing to work with land managers and owners to

resolve potential issues. Without question, this cache should be removed.

However, since there are 40,000+ cache listings, if possible, we'd

appreciate some help further identifying the cache specifically so we can

contact the owner. Coordinates, a website link or, I suppose, the

eventual contact from the Maricopa County Flood Control will undoubtedly

help.

 

Regarding your statement, "we do not think your website is the kind of PR

the Center is seeking.", quite frankly, I feel that this statement is an

insult to all of us and, in fact, take it personally. It amazes me to

think that you would so openly judge and potentially punish thousands by

the actions of a small few. The majority of the Geocaching community is

made up of good people and, if your stance would be held, you'll never

know it.

 

Thank you again for your note. With your continued assistance, perhaps we

can prevent Geocachers from enjoying the balance of natural resources that

Arizona has to offer. Please let me know if you have any further

suggestions.

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bryan Roth

Groundspeak

 

 

Original Message Follows:

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

From: xxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:02:10 EST

 

Mr. Roth;

 

Thank you for removing the Rock Art Center from your website. Your

suggestion to remove the "offensive" photo and post guidelines for

geocachers

is not acceptable at this point. The photo, in fact, is beyond offensive.

 

Also, you have ignored the issue that you did not request permission from

the

Center of Maricopa County Flood Control to place a "virtual cache" on your

 

website. I also do not think that the cache on Adobe Dam has permission to

be

there. Your website encourages geocachers to hike the dam to find the

cache.

There are "No Trespassing" signs posted all over the dam. Trespassers

could

receive either a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I have contacted

 

Flood Control once again about that cache. Do not be surprised if it is

removed. Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing

a

cache if any kind. New rules are in place here in Arizona.

 

I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has

attracted

some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR

the

Center is seeking.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center

 

From: xxxxxxxxx

To: contact@Groundspeak.com

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:02:10 EST

Local: Tues, Feb 18 2003 8:02 pm

Subject: Re: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Mr. Roth;

 

Thank you for removing the Rock Art Center from your website. Your

suggestion to remove the "offensive" photo and post guidelines for geocachers

is not acceptable at this point. The photo, in fact, is beyond offensive.

 

Also, you have ignored the issue that you did not request permission from the

Center of Maricopa County Flood Control to place a "virtual cache" on your

website. I also do not think that the cache on Adobe Dam has permission to be

there. Your website encourages geocachers to hike the dam to find the cache.

There are "No Trespassing" signs posted all over the dam. Trespassers could

receive either a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I have contacted

Flood Control once again about that cache. Do not be surprised if it is

removed. Geocachers must get permission from land managers before placing a

cache if any kind. New rules are in place here in Arizona.

 

I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has attracted

some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR the

Center is seeking.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center

 

From: "Cache Inquiries"

To: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:06:11 -0800

Local: Mon, Feb 17 2003 10:06 pm

Duration: 25:50 minutes

Subject: [#634] Re: Request for removal from your website

 

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

Dear xxxxxxxx,

 

Your email was passed along to me for follow up.

 

As requested, I will remove the offending virtual cache from our website.

Before I do, I was hoping that you'd consider reading these 4 recent

'cache logs' written by geocachers:

 

February 5 by Ranger Team

"...Nice day to enjoy the rock center with the children. Thanks for

bringing us here."

 

January 5 by TeamBlunder

"Was very interesting walking through and learning something about the

Petroglyphs...thanks so much for bringing us here.

Thanks for a fun cache I could do with my boys."

 

January 4 by AZAppels

"very nice location. after paying entry fee ($5.00, senior & students

$3.00) the museum portion is very interesting. the 1/4 mile walk is truly

a sign from the past. The ranger was great explaining what was seen."

 

January 3 by WEFINDUM

"Neat place to visit. We had no idea this was here and so close"

 

My point is that it seems as though your are judging the environmentally

friendly geocaching community by the actions portrayed in one photo of a

young girl. Now, I don't think either of us would believe that this is

the first or last time someone didn't exactly follow the rules, but to

punish the rest of these paying families, senior citizens and individuals

for this action would be unfair, to say the least.

 

This virtual cache draws people to see something wonderful that they would

not otherwise see. Surely there is a better way to address this issue.

Personally, I'd hate to have Geocachers miss out on this collection.

 

Anyway, a suggestion: What if we remove that specific photo from the site

and include a note to geocachers who visit? The note can include rules,

site regulations, etc. I am open to other suggestions.

 

Alternatively, we can remove the site as requested. In the interim, I

will temporarily disable this cache on the site and remove the offending

photo. Please let me know your preference and feel free to call or write

with any additional questions or concerns.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

Sincerely,

 

Bryan Roth

Groundspeak, Inc.

P: 206.302.7721 x103

F: 206.374.8161

 

 

Original Message Follows:

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

From: xxxxxxx

Subject: Request for removal from your website

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:42:46 -0500

 

Jeremy;

 

I have emailed you about the virtual cache at the Deer Valley Rock Art

Center. You have been quite condescending during our previous

communications. Yes, I know what "virtual" is as well as a "cache" and

"geocaching". Thank you for the lesson in vocabulary! You seemed to avoid

the fact that no one asked permission to place this virtual cache on our

property and on your website.

 

The Center recently had visitors who learned about our site from your

website. On your website there is a photo of a girl leaning on one of the

petroglyphs. Visitors are told to not touch the glyphs. "Touch" includes

leaning, sitting, and standing on the glyphs. Her arm touches the top of

the glyph!

 

This email is a request to remove the virtual cache from the Center, and

to remove the Center entirely from your website. You did not seek

permission about the virtual cache, and now this photo disturbs me

greatly! Harkening back to an earlier email, many geocachers do not follow

proper equitte at archaeological sites. This picture reinforces that!

 

Please remove the Deer Valley Rock Art Center from your website. I hope

this request will not turn into a legal matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

(name withheld)

Deer Valley Rock Art Center


Link to comment

I'm sorry, I've always considered the concept of asking "permission" to place a virtual cache anywhere to be about the most ridiculous thing I've come across in a long, long, long time.

 

I can cope with getting the virtual cache "approved" by the GeoCaching staff, that's the normal course of business, but to need "permission" to tell people about an interesting place to SEE something is unbelievable!!! This is beyond petty! This is unendingly pretentious of anyone who things in this manner!!! You might as well tell me I have to have "permission" to tell my own children there are monuments and such to see in Washington D. C. Give me a dadgum break....

 

Please grow a set folks and tell these people we do NOT have to remove virtuals, period. If there is a physical cache placed without permission, by all means remove it, that is reasonable and in keeping with the rules of our game. A virtual violates NOTHING! As others have mentioned above we have to be reasonable and not lead people to trespass or otherwise break the law, but that is just good common sense.

 

This issue just gets my goat ya'll. Please tell me we are not caving in on this issue and everytime someone complains we are going to ditch the virtual. Someone? Anyone?

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

Here goes.

1. A quick search found the DVRAC web site and the e-mail address of the director. I got 237 hits. One other thing the DVRAC is run by ASU.

 

The director's name is Peter Welsh. e-mail peter.welsh@asu.edu

 

I sent the following to Mr Welsh.

 

Dear Mr. Welsh,

I am part of a group of people that like to seek out places and things using a GPS to navigate to the destination. You may or may not have heard of a web sit, goecaching.com. This site contains information about the above activity. In some cases a container is hidden and then found, in other cases no object is hidden. In those cases it is suggested that a person might like to visit such and such a place, and the gps coordinates are posted on the web site. We find this has a certain appeal over just saying drive to.. turn.. etc. We get there just the same but with a little more challenge.

 

I write this to because there has been some discussion on the geocaching forums about correspondence with one your staff. Please read the discussion at http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=9080924255

I encourage you to go to the above URL and read the comments there.

 

The correspondence seems to be an attempt to violate 1st amendment rights.

 

Thanks for you time.

Byron

 

Byron

Link to comment

Non-cachers don't think the way cachers do. And for us to insist that they do so is unfair to non-cachers. Here are a couple of quotes from geocaching.com's own "Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache":

 

"If you place it on private land, please ask permission before putting it there! If you place the cache on public lands you need to contact the managing agency to find out about their rules."

 

"Please do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans."

 

You and I may read those lines and assume that they apply only to physical caches. If you read them from the perspective of someone who has no interest in what we do except for how it might affect what they hold dear, you may see that the difference between a physical and a virtual cache makes no difference to them. All they know is that our own rules were broken in the creation of this cache, and that apparently led to photographic evidence that the Deer Valley Rock Art Center's (DVRAC) rules were violated by cachers as well.

 

I'm not saying that point of view is either right or wrong, but I'm sure the objection is based more on the fact that the cache was "placed" without permission than anything else. I say that because I've known this has been an issue, not only with the DVRAC, but with other land management agencies in Arizona as well, for over a month now. I've mentioned the issue to some within the Arizona Geocaching community. I haven't gone public with it because I feared the reaction of the larger Geocaching community to what on first hearing sounds like an absurd notion: getting permission to place virtual caches. Now, though, we know to a non-cacher such a notion isn't absurd at all.

 

Geocachers have made a lot of progress in this state since last August's newspaper article, and I think in the intervening months the Geocachers in Arizona have been able to undo a lot of the damage that article caused. But almost every land manager to whom cachers have spoken has said, in one way or another, "Play by your own rules. Get permission."

 

Coincidentally, I received an envelope today from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of Arizona State Parks. SHPO has given me the listings of four physical caches in the state that apparently are on or threaten archaeological sites. I was going to send private emails to the cache owners requesting their relocation or removal, but under the circumstances is this something the Admins would prefer to handle?

 

Steve

Team Tierra Buena

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

 

I didn't realize that I needed permission to recommend a beautiful and historical location to my friends. I wonder if the outfitter who rented canoes to 400 boy scouts and leaders had permission to recommend stopping at such a delicate site????

 


 

My thougths exactly. And if the boy scout troop has a web page that says "Hey everyone! Check out this great tourist spot." Will they tell the boy scouts they can't do that?

 

What if the co-ords are to the parking lot, with a comment like "Stop here on your vacation in AZ. Great place to visit!" Would they have a problem with that?

 

What if I make a webpage that says "Great places to visit -- for NONgeocachers." and give their address?

 

What if someone who visited my webpage touches a rock while they are there?

 

These are the sort of comments people need to send to this person, and to her boss, to point out the foolishness of her response.

 

Windrose

 

Some minds are like cement, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

 

[This message was edited by Windrose on February 19, 2003 at 08:05 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Tierra Buena:

 

You and I may read those lines and assume that they apply only to physical caches. If you read them from the perspective of someone who has no interest in what we do except for how it might affect what they hold dear, you may see that the difference between a physical and a virtual cache makes no difference to them. All they know is that our own rules were broken in the creation of this cache, and that apparently led to photographic evidence that the Deer Valley Rock Art Center's (DVRAC) rules were violated by cachers as well.

 


 

Yes but if they charge admission, they obviously want people to visit.

 

Now obviously the kid who touched the glyph was wrong (and her parents were wrong) but for them to say "We don't want YOUR kind in our park..." is wrong. I'm sure many visitors (who are not geocachers) break the rules and do the same thing.

 

They need to address the problem of protecting the glyphs, not trying to tell us, we cannot tell our friends (fellow geocachers) to visit this park. Because the 5% who break the rules are going to do that whether they are geocachers or not.

 

95% (or more) of the geocachers who visit this park will be responsible people who will respect and obey the park's rules.

 

At my work we have a joke which describes stupid decisions that are put forth as solutions but don't address the problem.

 

It goes like this, "My horse has a broken leg. What should I do?" The answer, "Shoot your dog."

 

The reasoning, "Since you only use the horse to go hunting, and you can't go hunting without your dog, if you shoot the dog, you won't care if the horse has a broken leg."

 

Will removing the virtual cache stop people from breaking the park's rules? "No, but we don't care."

 

Windrose

 

Some minds are like cement, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Windrose:

Yes but if they charge admission, they obviously want people to visit.


 

Qouted from http://www.asu.edu/clas/anthropology/dvrac/aboutus.html

 

"The Deer Valley Rock Art Center opened to the public in December of 1994."

"Almost 15,000 people visited the Deer Valley Rock Art Center this past year."

 

I am a firm believer that absolutly no permission is required for a virtual cache on any publicly accessable site. Sounds like a severe case of cachephobia. icon_frown.gif

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rothstafari:

... in the interest of fairness and making this game better for all, I am soliciting your feedback on her approach and ours so that we can hopefully fare better in the future.


 

Getting back on topic, perhaps if we used the explanation that a virtual cache is nothing more than "directions" to a location we want to "share" with others because of it's unique characteristics, we would gain better acceptance. We could also compare a virtual cache to an online review of a location much like a travel guide or newspaper article.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Link to comment

Hello,

 

I would like to introduce myself as the owner of the virtual cache that has become the center of this controversy. The reason that I created the cache was to share with others some of the beauty and history that our state has to offer.

 

I clearly posted on the cache page the hours that the museum is open and there was never a need for a visitor to “trespass”. In order to find the answers to the questions you never had to leave the public access paths that are maintained at the site.

 

As far as the “offensive” photograph it consists of my daughter leaning up against a boulder with her arm above the petroglyph. This boulder is located directly in the walking path that a visitor takes to view the various petroglyphs at the site. Since this is a museum and this particular boulder was directly in the walking path I did not believe it was “off limits” The rest of the boulders are separated from visitors by short tubular fencing that clearly define restricted space. Since this boulder was directly in the visitors pathway, not separated by fencing, with no signs stating do not touch I did not believe there was any problem with my daughter posing by the glyph. My impression of the placement of the boulder directly in the walking path was that it was put there exactly for that purpose. This boulder is also clearly separated from main rock panels giving me the impression that it was there for public inspection. Many museums have similar displays that the public is allowed to touch and examine. We are sorry if we violated the museum rules but it was an honest mistake and this particular boulder should have been clearly marked, or fenced off.

 

Whiling visiting the site, we spoke with the park ranger who happened to be Native American. During our conversation he explained how many of the local Arizona tribes once considered this site as a primary sacred location to them. He explained to us that many of these tribes felt betrayed and offended by the academic community taking over this sacred site and believed these people demonstrated little compassion, understanding or respect for their cultural heritage. Many of these tribes consider this site desecrated and will no longer visit this area because of the interference of the academic community.

 

Is there a double standard that the museum is offended about a picture of a child touching “their” boulder, yet have no difficulty alienating entire tribes of Native Americans in order to conduct their research? The attitude we’ve derived appears to be elitist, encouraging academia but forgoing anyone else’s learning.

 

The museum is run by Arizona State University, which is a publicly funded school. They lease the site from the Maricopa County Flood Control district, which is also publicly funded. I find the following statement interesting.

 

“ I appreciate the removal of the Center from your website. It has attracted

some visitors. However, we do not think your website is the kind of PR the

Center is seeking”

 

It interesting that they want to be selective in who can visit this publicly funded site. Who else is not welcome? The handicapped? Anglos’? Blacks? Hispanic’s? Hunters? Fishermen? 4x4 enthusiasts? Dog lovers? I do not recall seeing the sign on what they consider “acceptable” visitors.

 

What is acceptable P.R.? National Geographic Magazine? Readers Digest? Playboy? Since when do they get to control freedom of speech regarding this publicly supported site?

 

I also find this statement interesting:

 

“Please remove the Deer Valley Rock Art Center from your website. I hope

this request will not turn into a legal matter”

 

What legal matter? There never, ever, was anything placed on this publicly owned property. This site is listed a “Phoenix Points of Pride” and “The National Register Of Historic Places”. Are they also going to be sued? Do a Web Search on “Deer Valley Rock Art Center” and see how many hits you get. Are they going to threaten legal action against all these sites? I seem to remember a little article called the 1st amendment that maybe they should read about.

 

The sad thing is that as an educational institution they have missed an opportunity to help educated the Geocaching community about the importance of not touching petroglyphs. After learning of their concern I could have posted on the cache page about how the oils in fingerprints can actually harm a petroglyph. This opportunity is now lost because of their narrow minded thinking.

 

Ken

WhereRWee?

Link to comment

Ken, great post. You should participate in the forums more often. We could use a level headed guy like you around here.

 

I'd like to see you go back to the site to discuss the matter with someone. You make a convincing argument (although I was already convinced). I'm sure you could show them the light.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I wish I was close enough to go there today. I have not yet, after caching for 2 years, gone after a virtual. But this one would be at the top of my list. I would love nothing better, than to walk up to this individual, with GPS in hand, & have her come close to suggesting that I'm not welcome there. icon_mad.gif This is pure nonsense, that has to be stopped.

 

Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life.

Link to comment

Great post, Ken.

 

Personally, I really doubt the person that contacted this site has any real authority. Probably, a bright eyed college student with her own ideas of how the world should be.

 

As for that article trashing geocaching, I find it rather ridiculous that Arizona is trying to preserve over 50,000 places where someone lived before. I can certainly understand a few of the better ones, but 50,000? That's out of hand.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

"Removing" a virtual cache (which, by definition, does not exist) sets a dangerous precedent. We're basically telling people that if you push us hard enough, we won't even be able to mention your location on a public web site.

 

If they wanted a physical cache removed, then by all means let's remove it and offer our sincere apologies for its placement in a non-friendly area. If they want a VIRTUAL cache removed, one that's in a public area accessible to anyone (even if they pay an entry fee), then they need to be politely, reasonably, but FIRMLY advised that it isn't going to happen.

 

That's my two cents' worth.

 

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gimpy:

I wish I was close enough to go there today. I have not yet, after caching for 2 years, gone after a virtual. But this one would be at the top of my list. I would love nothing better, than to walk up to this individual, with GPS in hand, & have her come close to suggesting that I'm not welcome there. icon_mad.gif This is pure nonsense, that has to be stopped.

 

Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life.


 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

It would appear that some things could be learned from this:

first--It looks as if the Rock Art Center did not want to really know about a virtual cache. THey did not want to hear there is nothing physical involved with this cache---only an invitation to visit the Center. When we visited the Center it was only because of the cache and enjoyed the visit. The Center will actually have fewer visitors because of this.

second--it is incumbent on cachers (and 99.9% of us realize this) to respect the location of the cache. In this case there were clear boundaries and to touch the petroglyp was definately not allowed. The person who violated the rules must realize she ruined what should have been an educational experience to be found thru geocaching.

For the Rock Art Center to feel this way because of the stupidity of one person (two actually--one in the picture, the other taking the picture) is not encouraging others who want to come and learn.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by WhereRWee?:

 

As far as the “offensive” photograph it consists of my daughter leaning up against a boulder with her arm above the petroglyph. This boulder is located directly in the walking path that a visitor takes to view the various petroglyphs at the site. Since this is a museum and this particular boulder was directly in the walking path I did not believe it was “off limits” The rest of the boulders are separated from visitors by short tubular fencing that clearly define restricted space. Since this boulder was directly in the visitors pathway, not separated by fencing, with no signs stating do not touch I did not believe there was any problem with my daughter posing by the glyph. My impression of the placement of the boulder directly in the walking path was that it was put there exactly for that purpose. This boulder is also clearly separated from main rock panels giving me the impression that it was there for public inspection. Many museums have similar displays that the public is allowed to touch and examine. We are sorry if we violated the museum rules but it was an honest mistake and this particular boulder should have been clearly marked, or fenced off.

 


 

I didn't realize the placement of the boulder. From the park person's email I got the impression that the child in the photo had left the trail and gone into a prohibited area to touch the boulder.

 

If that boulder is in the pathway, then it is being touched by at least 90% of their 15,000 yearly visitors. And, as you said, that's probably why it's there.

 

If I was close enough I would go there and annoy every park employee by asking over and over, if it's alright to touch and photograph that boulder. Then I would get very excited and tell them repeatedly that "You HAVE to rope it off!!! People are touching it!!!"

 

I agree with Whidbey Walk, a virtual cache is no different than a review in a travel guide or the "Please visit us" page. And there has got to be a way to make the park personnel understand that. If they average 15,000 !!!! visitors a year!!!! They're worried about, what maybe 10 geocachers. I mean Come on!!!

 

Windrose

 

Some minds are like cement, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

Link to comment

if the person with the bug up their butt with this virt. ever visited the petroglyphs at the Valley of Fire, NV. Sadly, not only are they probably 'touched', many people have decided to add their own glyphs to the rocks in that area. (and I visited this place years ago, so it can't be us nasty cachers!)

 

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is

Link to comment

I feel obligated to reply to AZAppels recent post attacking me regarding this incident and calling me and my 11 year old daughter “Stupid” and ruining this experience for others. Obviously AZApples has never made a mistake and is just as short sighted and ignorant as the person who requested that the cache be removed. As I stated in my earlier post the location where the picture was taken was on one of the walking paths. There were no signs, fencing, or other indications that this particular boulder was not to be examined by the public.

 

As a mater of fact shortly before taking the picture I had spoken with the park ranger who advised me that the boulder had been struck by a bulldozer when the site was originally discovered by the Army Corps of Engineering. The boulder has heavy scarring from the bulldozer impact and the ranger was within 50 feet of us when we took the picture. As a matter of fact we took several photos at this boulder and he never said a single thing to us.

 

During our tour to the site they had an exhibit inside of the museum where you could pick up and examine hammerstones that were used to create the petroglyphs. Your stupidity attacking me for an honest mistake is amazing. If the DVRAC does not want the public touching this boulder literally in the center of the walking path then they need to post a sign, or fence it off. Curiosity is natural and the location of this particular boulder invites the public to examine and even touch it.

 

I apologized in my original post for my error and consider your reply as a personal attack against my daughter and me.

 

Ken

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by AZAppels:

For the Rock Art Center to feel this way because of the stupidity of one person (two actually--one in the picture, the other taking the picture) is not encouraging others who want to come and learn.


 

What an idiotic & thoughtless statement this is. icon_mad.gif

 

Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life.

Link to comment

I'm also with Gimpy! (Hiya, Gimp!) icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

I'd go there with ya! If that happened here, I'd go there everyday - each day with more people... But I wouldn't pay to go in... I'd stand outside with binoculaurs! icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif Or something.

 

But I wouldn't cave in to this "person," either.

 

I also did my stint in the legal field, serving in the JAG office in the Air Force. Please, someone with more jurisprudence correct me, icon_wink.gif but the way I see it:

 

You can post on a website all day long about the various buildings, their heights - and their accessibility via stairwell to the top. As long as it's accessible to everyone, and not illegal, you're very purpose doesn't matter. You can say you're directing people to "great views." Great views are owned by nobody, unless on inaccessible, private property. So now somebody goes up there and jumps. Bad call. Their free will, and their choice. You can even put a picture of them falling. But you did not encourage them to jump, you didn't ask them to, and you certainly aren't responsible for their actions as individuals. The "deeper pocket theory" cannot be transposed into a "deeper responsibility theory" unless a minor is under your direct care.

 

 

That said, maybe someone else can take issue - especially the placer of the cache. As stated, nobody "owns" those coordinates. If you aren't directing anybody to break the law (indeed, you are only basically "advertising" a public place of business albeit on private land) then you haven't broken the law. As the cache owner, I'd hurl back a letter so darn fast mentioning DISCRIMINATION and I'd work the director (even higher, if necessary) until there were complimentary visits pouring out their arse. And I would be successful. icon_wink.gif She's no right to threaten the spread of information about a perfectly legal attraction. Nor can she dissuade visits from any particular "organization."

 

I can understand Groundspeak's desire to oversee their assets. However, I personally feel one should stand up for themselves if they are right - you can be stripped of everything if you protect nothing. And I don't think Groundspeak should abandon a perfectly placed legal cache which has been shared with them by a member of the geocaching community. When you start picking and choosing legal caches (that meet required guidelines) from the public community, you are not quite different from this lady picking and choosing their visitors. icon_wink.gif

 

This is a "virtual" cache. Nobody is "placing" anything on private land. Indeed, the location advertises for business and accordingly charges a public fee for general admission. Nobody needs "permission" from the owner to visit. icon_rolleyes.gif You only need to pay. If I was a black male, and I went and leaned on that boulder - and as a result the janitor zipped me off a letter saying "None of 'your type' allowed," I might possibly be able to give Jesse Jackson the first useful thing to do in years! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Truth be told, this cache is hardly in danger of provoking legal action. If that's the fear, the I think we can all agree that a huge number of caches could have a greater argument made against them (actual boxes placed on private property). Just because it's "public access" doesn't mean you can just plop caches there. Somebody owns that parking lot and thereby the bush or tree. icon_wink.gif

 

If the strongest finger shows no strength then we know the whole hand is weak.

 

Nothing against Grounspeak - indeed, I hope ya'll rethink the defense of a cache that's totally legal. There's a lot worse caches, and it's sort of skewed to be impassive about illegal ones and eliminate ones just comes somebody complains. Ya gotta stand up for the people that make you possible. icon_wink.gif

 

What to do? Why not someone with some writing power who is affected directly by this cache do some lobbying? Zip off some letters. Get some positive responses. Send Jeremy et. al. an invitation from these people along with an apology. That's working together to keep the sport strong - unity is needed. I can't fault Jeremy and company for having no spine if the geocachers themselves aren't willing to back up their caches as well.

 

I think it's cool that this exchange was shared with us. Groundspeak didn't need to let us in on this dirty little exchange, but hopefully by doing so we can rally behind them and pump our gonads back up and not be pushed around by a racist park janitor. icon_wink.gif (Isn't geocaching a race, now? I know was born with cache-genetics icon_biggrin.gif )

 

And I totally agree with the NRA fella. Acutally, there are more of us than one might think in this thread. The NRA only remains today because of its lobbying efforts, combined with a mutual support from gun-enthusiasts as well as true believers in the Constitution.

 

hehehe... now the lawyer part... "for a fee...." Someone zip me off tee-shirts for the whole family and I'll get you that apology and an invitation to encourage visitation to that public tourist attraction. icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif But seriously, the onus is really on the cache-placer and Groundspeak. Ya'll have the legal intelligence to stand up for you, us and the hobby. icon_smile.gif

 

Good to get the defensive juices pumping, eh? icon_biggrin.gif

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Tank at: FISH WHISPERER'S LAGOON

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by AZAppels:

For the Rock Art Center to feel this way because of the stupidity of one person (two actually--one in the picture, the other taking the picture) is not encouraging others who want to come and learn.

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


 

That is a load of p.c. cow-towing. A personal attack... How rude.

 

 

Although, I'm sure I'm gonna get "personally attacked" for my verbosity and challenge to some's ability to read ad-nauseum. icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

Also, my above thoughts were just that - thoughts based solely on the information available thus far in the thread. Key ingredients are: Public access to all, albeit an admission fee - and no prohibition of photos.

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Tank at: FISH WHISPERER'S LAGOON

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by WhereRWee?:

I feel obligated to reply to AZAppels recent post attacking me regarding this incident and calling me and my 11 year old daughter “Stupid” and ruining this experience for others. Obviously AZApples has never made a mistake and is just as short sighted and ignorant as the person who requested that the cache be removed. As I stated in my earlier post the location where the picture was taken was on one of the walking paths. There were no signs, fencing, or other indications that this particular boulder was not to be examined by the public.

 

As a mater of fact shortly before taking the picture I had spoken with the park ranger who advised me that the boulder had been struck by a bulldozer when the site was originally discovered by the Army Corps of Engineering. The boulder has heavy scarring from the bulldozer impact and the ranger was within 50 feet of us when we took the picture. As a matter of fact we took several photos at this boulder and he never said a single thing to us.

 

During our tour to the site they had an exhibit inside of the museum where you could pick up and examine hammerstones that were used to create the petroglyphs. Your stupidity attacking me for an honest mistake is amazing. If the DVRAC does not want the public touching this boulder literally in the center of the walking path then they need to post a sign, or fence it off. Curiosity is natural and the location of this particular boulder invites the public to examine and even touch it.

 

I apologized in my original post for my error and consider your reply as a personal attack against my daughter and me.

 

Ken


 

First let me say I agree with all those that have spoken in favor of reinstating this virtual cache. I don't believe based on the facts, as I know them thus far that they have any right to keep visitors from this location, whether they are geocachers or any other type. Should they intend to do so then we, as geocachers, have been discriminated against and have legal rights under the law to protect us. Now while I'm not a lawyer I would also suspect that a representative that has, in writing, said our type of patronage is not welcomed, could be held legally accountable for said statement.

 

Secondly I want to speak about the post from AZAppels about WhereAreWee the cache owners and alleged guilty party. I hope that those words are out of ignorance and not malice. I would hope that someone that would write that would have done so because they failed to read all the previous post and don't have a clear understanding of the facts. Because if you have read the previous post that WhereAreWee posted then it is clearly not any fault on his or his daughters. I consider myself to be an educated, intelligent individual that is always respectful of others and their property. But I would have concluded the same thing if I had visited this place. If there is a bolder which has been placed in the middle of the walkway with neither rope, fence or sign stating it is not to be touched or photographed, I would conclude that is exactly what was intended to be done with said bolder.

 

Let me be the first to say I don't feel you or your daughter has done anything wrong. And those that would are clearly uninformed of the situation.

Link to comment

quote:
I would also suspect that a representative that has, in writing, said our type of patronage is not welcomed, could be held legally accountable for said statement.


 

You are correct. To be inclusive, however, icon_wink.gif we'd go after their actual organization of employ - the individual having acted as an agent and on behalf of said organization.

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Tank at: FISH WHISPERER'S LAGOON

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:

You are correct. To be inclusive, however, icon_wink.gif we'd go after their actual organization of employ - the individual having acted as an agent and on behalf of said organization.


 

I like the way you think. Before we are done not only will they be apologizing for their actions and statements they will be giving free admission for anyone showing up with a GPS. icon_biggrin.gif

Link to comment

If and only if it's at the request of Groundspeak, I'd be happy to dive into this one. But it wouldn't be fair to Jeremy or his organization to speak on behalf of them. I could speak as "Joe Geocacher" (hey, is a Fox reality series in the works? icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif ) but I personally haven't been damaged nor digressed. I've suffered no personal loss. Groundspeak is the one that has been addressed by the park representative, and it would be rude of me to jump in and take over the course of action Bryan Roth and Jeremy Irish have decided is best for their business. This is their baby - and in fairness to them we can only express our opinion on how they choose to deal with the situation. They know all the details, and it is their right to handle the matter as they see fit - yes, as hobbyists we can show up with GPSrs. But to speak on behalf of Groundspeak and demand (which is what I would do) an apology from a higher-up park director would require a request to do so. And believe it or not, such a demand letter would be quite short and to the point (unlike my ramblings here). I do know the importance of getting a point across succinctly - but in our informal chats I type like we'd be talking sitting across from one-another; hence, the length. icon_wink.gif

 

If anything, I want Jeremy and Bryan to know that some of us wouldn't be so complacent nor complying to an individual without further exploring the issue. Conversely, we don't know what Jeremy and Bryan have have done, nor the extent of their communication. If they feel it best to let this dog lie - we should honor that and not go firing of letters on behalf of their business.

 

That said, wouldn't it be sweet to chalk one up for our group? I know that Groundspeak is trying to "catch more flies with honey" and that some of the top organizers think it better to not take a controversial route. I can understand this. Sometimes you forego a smaller battle in hopes of winning the war. icon_wink.gif No doubt they'd have to "give us" this one... But maybe Bryan can see a bit further down the road and sense that the State of Arizona might come down real hard on tangible caches, thus the compliance. Still wouldn't a bit of inquiry to the higher-ups be a worthy task?

Oh well. It's the call of this board's leaders to choose how they deal with their namesake and public relations. We stand at the ready, if needed! icon_smile.gif

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Tank at: FISH WHISPERER'S LAGOON

Link to comment

I still want to know if the cache owners were given a fair chance to deal with this issue before Groundspeak got into the middle of it. If you're reading this, WhereRWee, please do tell. I expect that he could have handled this just fine without any help from TPTB. It's not that I don't appreciate the efforts of Jeremy & Company. I do. It's just that I hate to see them getting bogged down with settling disputes that can and should be dealt with by the cache owner. It isn't fair to just archive the cache and air the dirty laundry of WhereRWee here in the forums without first giving him a fair chance to resolve the problem himself, especailly in a case like this when he probably did absoulutely nothing wrong. I just don't see the sense in trying to solve these kinds of problems via remote control from Seattle. You guys can't micromanage this site like this forever. I kinda wish that WhereRWe would have had the chance to send Grandmaster after this imbecile before the cache was archived. I likes fireworks!

 

Johnny

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lefty Skywalker:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~dmille15/adobecaches.jpg

 

Where's the cache on the dam?

 

What Would Yoda Do?


 

You have pointed almost exactly at my cache that I planted yesterday!!!

 

Cool.. HedgPeth cache.. check it out.

 

BTW I still cannot find you ADOBE cache. Been up there twice.

 

I dont think the rock art center should have been removed and cant see the basis for their complaint.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...