When two caches collide, The follow up to Cache Wars.

24.7k · April 24, 2003

First of all this was not brought into the forums before tying to work it out directly with the other cache owner and through contact@geocaching.com. Also because Jeremy archived the original cache, only Jeremy can solve the problem. However the forums are the final appeal. This is that final appeal. Night Stalker can make his own case if he so chooses, or ad to this thread.

The best way to present this is by the chain of events.

Night Stalker had a cache idea and wanted to place a virtual cache in NPS land in Utah. Knowing that caches were banned on NPS lands he decided to ask permission and did so.

The person in charge thought his idea for a virtual cache was good idea and so she ran the idea up the chain of command.

Meanwhile Seth! Gets the same idea and places the cache in the same park. His cache can be viewed Here. Seth!’s cache is approved and goes on line.

Night Stalker finally gets approval and the park director also gives some input on what they would like to see in the cache. Now that he has permission he places his on geocaching.com and it’s approved. You can see the cache Here.

Upon seeing that there is another nearby cache Seth! Uses the “Archive this cache” feature stating that this cache is a duplicate and that the admin who approved it shouldn’t have.

Jeremy seeing that there is a duplication archives Night Stalkers Cache.

Both Night Stalker and I email Seth!, and point out that Night Stalker’s cache had permission and that even though it was listed on geocaching.com second both caches could co-exist. Several emails pass back and forth and it becomes clear that Seth! Isn’t going to go to bat to get Night Stalker’s cache approved. Further he takes the stand that Permission is stupid because it’s a public area, and that there should only be one cache. Lastly he thinks approval took far to long invalidating the claim Night Stalker had on the area. We state that while we would like both to exist, if he’s going to play highlander (“There can be only one”) That one is the cache with permission.

After negotiations to get Seth!, on board fail we both use the contact@geocaching.com to try and resolve the issue. There is no response.

The bottom line. One cache has permission, the Other was approved first. Each cache in and of itself is ok. The other cache owner demands there be only one cache (his). Night Stalker and I both happen to think that if there is to only be one, it’s the one with permission, though both can highlight a different aspect of this NPS area and co-exist is also a solution in our book.

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

Wherever you go there you are.

4.8k · April 24, 2003

I say if the caches highlight different aspects of the area as you say that they do, then both should be allowed.

There are parks here that have four or five caches in them. They are far enough away from each other to meet the .1 mile rule and have different features. That is ok, so I don't see why 2 virtuals in the same NPS area couldn't be ok. No one gets a monopoly on any given park!

I say resubmit the cache with a note stating that it is not an exact duplicate of the other cache.

April 24, 2003

The one that followed the rules should be posted. As long as you can prove it. They took the time to go thru the chain of command. Very unfair Jeremy!!

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

1.8k · April 24, 2003

There really is only one fair way to settle this... First, Night Stalker and Seth! both need to send me $20 each, then and only then, will I be able to fully concentrate on the problem at hand ...

"Heck, that scares me and I'm fearless"

April 24, 2003

Seth! is wrong on at least two counts:

* His refusal to get permission can only hurt the image of geocaching in the eyes of NPS, and we seem to be having enough trouble without giving them ammunition against us.

* His inability to understand Night Stalker's position and work out a compromise; what can I say except 'Grow up!'? Working with others is part of being an adult.

Jeremy can only go by the information that he is given. He looked at the information that he had at the time and made a decision. In his place I would have made the same decision, and if I were in Seth!'s place I would archive my cache and request that Night Stalker's be unarchived.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

5.3k · April 24, 2003

Why do you need permission for a virtual cache?

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

April 24, 2003

Permission is not the issue here at all since, after all, it is a virtual.

The admins should bring back the archieved one and let them co-exist. They seem different enough to exist together. Is there a reason why that cannot happen?

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

4.7k · April 24, 2003

i'd have to vote in favor of the one with permssion. and here's another thing: i'd rather have a cache to hunt than host one. any cache i place is one i can't hunt.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

38.2k · April 24, 2003

Seth was there first. It's a virtual cache, so why would there be a need for permission? If it's between the two, my feeling that Seth!'s cache should stay and Night Stalker should realize that this is a free country (or at least it was) and there is no need to ask permission to post coordinates on the internet.

It doesn't matter whether the coordinates are to a nice view, a memorial, a good campsite, your house, your friends house, whatever. Just because someone calls it a "virtual cache" and posted the coordinates on this website doesn't change the 1st amendment.

If it hurts geocaching in the eyes of the NPS, who cares? They don't allow physical caches and have shown no sign that they ever will. And they can't stop us from posting virtuals.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 24, 2003 at 01:45 PM.]

April 24, 2003

I'd say archive the cache without permission untill, they get permission and reactive it.

Every time i cache i say i need a second job, everytime i apply for a job i realize there will be no time to cache???

See You In the Woods!!!

Natureboy1376

2.7k · April 24, 2003

Archive both of them for 24 hours. Then with all the Freedoms we as Americans are supposed to have, let both of them plant a new cache with a new name. Then go log both of them and say Thanks to the Cache creators

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

1.6k · April 24, 2003

I think the main issue comes down to permisson.

While I feel seeking permisson to place a cache is admirable, I have to ask is it required?

From only looking at the cache pages, it appears as though the finder is simply doing pretty much what any visitor is doing when they visit the site. If so, there is no need to address the "impact issue" as it is the same for any visitor. There is nothing physical to maintain on site. The cache is completely transparent. So, the question is, "is permission needed to post a cache page where the visitor is doing what any visitor would do?" IMHO the answer is "no."

If no permission is needed or required, the first one to post the cache wins.

Now, on the other hand, if someone is able to convince the managers to allow a physical, even if it is just a logbook you have to ask for from behind the counter, then the physical should trump the virt. But that's just my opinion.

CR

24.7k · April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
Why do you need permission for a virtual cache?

http://208.55.63.109/images/homer.gif

__"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."__

In general you don't. After all it is a public place. The public is invited so long as they pay the entry fee. By and large I agree that permission is a waste of time for a virtual.

However it doesn't change that permission is a good idea. Consider that a virtual can take you off trail in a sensitive area, or that the park would like to highlight some relativly unknown aspect of the area.

Also, permission has value. It promotes the sport, gets people involved, lets the park know whats going on in their own park. It's not just a pointless excercise and wasted time if some other person happens to place a cache first because they didn't get permission.

1.7k · April 24, 2003

Here in sunny Arizona where I swear the heat affects the brains of people running this state, we have had a problem with avirtual cache placed without permission.It involved a public and advertised area to see Indian rock art and a virtual cache. It seems that while we understand the difference between a virtual and physical cache, the land management agencies do not. To them a cache is a cache no matter what we call it. Although the virtual was a worthwhile and proper one, the employee of the rock art site went nuts about it. This particular cache placement had to be archived. (For the record I mean no criticism to the owner of that cache. I was looking forward to doing it. I still can't believe how ugly the Indian rock art site director/employee got over this.) One of their main objections, besides their disdain for geocaching, was that permission was not asked, even for a virtual. They viewed it as their property and any activity on their property needed permission. Some geocachers here are now trying to educate the land agencies about the difference between virtual and physical caches.

The point is, permission should be obtained, according to the website. One had it, the other didn't. If only one cache could be there, give it to the one with permission. He followed the rules posted on this website. And it makes geocaching look good to NPS.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

[This message was edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking on April 24, 2003 at 06:19 PM.]

April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Seth was there first. It's a virtual cache, so why would there be a need for permission? If it's between the two, my feeling that Seth!'s cache should stay and Night Stalker should realize that this is a free country (or at least it was) and there is no need to ask permission to post coordinates on the internet.

BrianSnat, thanks for saving me some typing. I agree with your position totally. I don't need permission to exercise freedom of speech and I feel uncomfortable that anyone would think that asking for such permission is a good idea. If the two can't co-exist then - "first come first served."

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.3k · April 24, 2003

I have spoken with someone at a local NP about putting a virt there, they have been very receptive, and I think the conversation went well. I just have to find time to go out there and set up the cache so I can have a page for them to review before granting permission. My ultimate goal is to convince them to let me leave a logbook in the visitor's center. I think it would be unfair for my cache to be denied due to a cache that "beat me to it" because the hider didn't take the time to open a line of communication with park officials. I don't believe we really need to get permission for virts. But I do belive that we should at least try to develop a good rapport with the authorities. This can only help our image.

"Searching with my good eye closed"

9.4k · April 24, 2003

Although admirable, getting permission for a virtual is not a requirement.

I'd say let the caches stand the way they are now (give Seth the current location). Night Stalker already has started a dialogue with the NPS and could probably get permission for a different site easily.

Here's my idea: Night Stalker should find a new location and fill out the submit a cache page. On the page, leave a note for the approvers that permission to place the cache is being obtained. Once he has permission, he can email the admins with it. This saves his place in line and his cache location from anyone else with the same idea.

7.4k · April 24, 2003

I completely agree with BrianSnat and Seneca. While building a rapport with land managers is important and something that we should strive to do, I feel that it is tangential to this issue. The bottom line is that no permission is required (or should be) for a virtual cache on public land, and Seth! posted his cache first.

April 24, 2003

Is there any reason Night Stalker cannot simply change their coordinates to another area of the park, the entrance perhaps, and make it clear that folks will have to do a little research on-site in order to answer all of the questions?

Ron/yumitori

4.5k · April 24, 2003

by Stunod:

quote:
Why do you need permission for a virtual cache?

My question as well, why???

by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

quote:
Here in sunny Arizona where I swear the heat affects the brains of people running this state, we have had a problem with avirtual cache placed without permission.It involved a public and advertised area to see Indian rock art and a virtual cache. It seems that while we understand the difference between a virtual and physical cache, the land management agencies do not. To them a cache is a cache no matter what we call it. Although the virtual was a worthwhile and proper one, the employee of the rock art site went nuts about it. This particular cache placement had to be archived. (For the record I mean no criticism to the owner of that cache. I was looking forward to doing it. I still can't believe how ugly the Indian rock art site director/employee got over this.) One of their main objections, besides their disdain for geocaching, was that permission was not asked, even for a virtual. They viewed it as their property and any activity on their property needed permission. Some geocachers here are now trying to educate the land agencies about the difference between virtual and physical caches.

The point is, permission should be obtained. One had it, the other didn't. If only one cache could be there, give it to the one with permission. He followed the rules posted on this website. And it makes geocaching look good to NPS.

Thats a crock of pooh! You mean i cant go into a National Park and find the statue, historical marker, or whatever the Virtual Cache consists of? Give me a break here. If its there for ALL park visitors to enjoy and the virtual only asks that you look at it and email some info for verification then what can possibly be the problem!

As far as the caches in question, i dont see the problem with both co-existing!!!

April 24, 2003

No reason that I can see that both shouldn't be there. Some parks can have many traditionals. Why not have some with multiple virtuals? That's like saying that only one virtual is allowed to be in Yellowstone or Glacier. To put it another way: If I placed a virtual at the Big Hole Nat'l battlefield, and it led folks around the site, and someone else placed one at the visitor center, would there be conflict? Not unless the new virtual used a question the old virtual used.

I see both of these virtuals as having different enough outcomes that folks can enjoy both of them and learn more than if just one existed.

A question: Is there any way that one could be made a multistep that leads to a real cache outside the park grounds?

-Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

April 24, 2003

"Night Stalker had a cache idea and wanted to place a virtual cache in NPS land in Utah. Knowing that caches were banned on NPS lands he decided to ask permission and did so.

The person in charge thought his idea for a virtual cache was good idea and so she ran the idea up the chain of command.

Meanwhile Seth! Gets the same idea and places the cache in the same park. His cache can be viewed Here. Seth!’s cache is approved and goes on line.

Night Stalker finally gets approval and the park director also gives some input on what they would like to see in the cache."

Ok. somewhere between the first sentence and last sentence of this quote, you lost me. First it says permission was saw for a virtual cache. Then at the end the park director gives input on what they would like to see in the cache. Is Nightstalker's a physical or virtual?

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

2.3k · April 24, 2003

If they are both virtuals, post them both. I don't see why the two can't co-exist. No permission necessary on either one of them, but asking was nice. Post them both.

April 24, 2003

Virtuals aren't caches, so who cares?

1.2k · April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Seth was there first. It's a virtual cache, so why would there be a need for permission? If it's between the two, my feeling that Seth!'s cache should stay and Night Stalker should realize that this is a free country (or at least it was) and there is no need to ask permission to post coordinates on the internet.

BrianSnat, thanks for saving me some typing. I agree with your position totally. I don't need permission to exercise freedom of speech and I feel uncomfortable that anyone would think that asking for such permission is a good idea. If the two can't co-exist then - "first come first served."

AMEN! BINGO! RIGHT ON! TOUCHDOWN! ABSOLUTELY FREAKING "A" RIGHT! HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

The point being there are not enough ways to say how much I agree with what has been said by these two....

It is a VIRTUAL cache! In other words, it does not physically exist! The site exists! You go to the site, you look at what's there, you obtain a bit of information to confirm you went to the site and looked at the site, and you log it!

THERE IS NO NEED FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE A VIRTUAL CACHE!!!!!!

Why can't people get over this???? If you are going to leave a physical tupperware tub or ammo box, then OF COURSE you get permission first, it's just common sense! No one needs permission to go to Geocaching.com and put up a set of coordinates of an interesting place on the face of the planet they want to share with others!!! Please stop acting like this is Iraq and you need the permission of the Baath Party to live your life!!!

For crying out loud....... give me a freakin break....

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

1.2k · April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jonboy:
Virtuals aren't caches, so who cares?

(In best Gilda Radner voice)

"Oh, in that case, Never Mind"

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

2.6k · April 24, 2003

Having to seek permission for virtual caches seems like a very bad idea. Getting permission for a virtual cache sets a bad precidence.

george

Wanna go for a ride?

April 24, 2003

I agree

Getting permission for a virtual cache seems kind of pointless.

April 24, 2003

This is the most stupid thread I have ever seen and it's a duplicate of a thread that was already started.

To answer the question, "Why not have both?" the answer is that it is a really small place. The park is not much bigger than a railroad spike, for crying out loud. There is absolutely no reason to have to VCs in one place.

Nightstalker had two months to look at the web site and see that I had already posted a cache there. It was silly to post a duplicate in the first place.

As I've said before, asking permission to post a virtual cache is like buying a movie ticket for your imaginary friend. Seek professional help!

- Seth!

April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
However the forums are the final appeal. This is that final appeal. Night Stalker can make his own case if he so chooses, or ad to this thread.

Oh, please. If Night Stalker has his/her knickers in a knot, let him/her take it up.

Why the heck do you insist on flogging this dead, dead, dead horse, when it isn't even your cache, and the cache owner has yet to make a single post on the subject? Do you have ANYTHING NEW to add to the discussion since the last thread about this stupid conflict? Because if not, I really think it's time for you to get over it and move on.

38.2k · April 24, 2003

There is a website called www.waypoint.org.

It's simply a listing of interesting places to visit and they provide the coordinates. The only difference between waypoint.org and a geocaching.com virtual is that there are no "found it" logs and find counts.

Do they have to ask permission to post the coordinates? Absolutely not. Neither should we.

And I still wish that cache in Arizona, mentioned earlier in this thread, was re-activated. If it were my cache, I would insist. Hmmmm, come to think of it, maybe I'll post it on waypoint.org and let them complain.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

1.4k · April 24, 2003

SInce they are in the same place, why does it really matter which one stays? Permission was granted for a virtual cache. The coordinates are posted. Why does it REALLY matter who "owns" the coordinates? It's not like you win a prize for having the most people visit your cache.

I had the strange experience of posting a virtual at nearly the exact same coordinates as someone else, about 3 minutes before they did. When I realized what had happened, I just disabled my virtual, changed the coordinates to another location I had been planning a virtual for, and enabled it again, even though mine was approved first. No big deal. The whole idea was to bring people to a great location, which the other virtual did just as easily as mine.

1.7k · April 24, 2003

I didn't say I agree with asking permission, only that some land agencies don't see a difference between virtual and physical caches. NPS doesn't allow caches. Therefore permission should be obtained for the virtual cache. This makes geocaching respectable in their eyes. This goes a long way to helping the public/land agency perception of us. I cited the Deer Valley Rock Art Center because that was a clear case of geocachers not doing anything wrong yet the center viewed cachers as violating their turf. I'd like to geocaching be acceptable everywhere. To do that, we have to appear to be cooperative and reasonable. Maybe this way, we can get physical caches accepted once again in areas they are now banned from.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:
I didn't say I agree with asking permission, only that some land agencies don't see a difference between virtual and physical caches. NPS doesn't allow caches. Therefore permission should be obtained for the virtual cache.

And the enforcement of this NPS rule would be?????

April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:
I didn't say I agree with asking permission, only that some land agencies don't see a difference between virtual and physical caches. NPS doesn't allow caches. Therefore permission should be obtained for the virtual cache.

And the enforcement of this NPS rule would be?????

2k · April 24, 2003

As has been previously stated, Jeremy archived my cache. I wrote to him stating the reasons that I felt my cache should be reactivated. Namely that When I started the process there was no other cache at that location, and second the process I went through would only have improved our standing with the National Park Service. Unfortunately to date the only responses I have received are from Seth!.. It seems to me that if my request is going to be denied that Jeremy should be the one to say so and give his reasons why. I also notice that someone questioned why The NPS was involved in what the cache contains. This is poor wording in that they assisted in developing the questions to be answered in the cache. The idea was that if they were aware of the questions they could help any cacher who was having trouble finding the answers.

2.5k · April 24, 2003

Without trying to cause any trouble here, Seth is from Washington and Night Stalker is from Idaho. The cache is in Utah. I was going to suggest that both caches be archived since they amount to 'vacation' caches. However, on further inspection, the location seems to fall into Night Stalker's 'home' area. I base this on a cache he has in place less than 75 miles away. I'm pretty sure I know how I would call this one.

[This message was edited by cachew nut on April 24, 2003 at 09:01 PM.]

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Seth was there first. It's a virtual cache, so why would there be a need for permission? If it's between the two, my feeling that Seth!'s cache should stay and Night Stalker should realize that this is a free country (or at least it was) and there is no need to ask permission to post coordinates on the internet.

BrianSnat, thanks for saving me some typing. I agree with your position totally. I don't need permission to exercise freedom of speech and I feel uncomfortable that anyone would think that asking for such permission is a good idea. If the two can't co-exist then - "first come first served."

AMEN! BINGO! RIGHT ON! TOUCHDOWN! ABSOLUTELY FREAKING "A" RIGHT! HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

The point being there are not enough ways to say how much I agree with what has been said by these two....

It is a VIRTUAL cache! In other words, it does not physically exist! The site exists! You go to the site, you look at what's there, you obtain a bit of information to confirm you went to the site and looked at the site, and you log it!

THERE IS NO NEED FOR PERMISSION TO PLACE A VIRTUAL CACHE!!!!!!

Why can't people get over this???? If you are going to leave a physical tupperware tub or ammo box, then OF COURSE you get permission first, it's just common sense! No one needs permission to go to Geocaching.com and put up a set of coordinates of an interesting place on the face of the planet they want to share with others!!! Please stop acting like this is Iraq and you need the permission of the Baath Party to live your life!!!

For crying out loud....... give me a freakin break....

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

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

Amen, brothaaaas!

First come, first served. Seth!'s cache is perfectly legal, and breaks no laws. NPS does not have a ban on virtual caches, only physical ones. So there is no reason Seth!'s cache should not have been originally posted.

2 months later Night Stalker posts a cache at virtually the same location as Seth!'s cache. It CLEARLY violates the .1 mile cache density rule, and should never have been approved in the 1st place.

I fail to see what the issue here is, or why it's so hard to comprehend the outcome.

If Seth!'s cache was a physical one, in violation of NPS and GC.com rules, THEN there would be an issue here, and a different outcome, I'm sure.

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

April 25, 2003

I can understand the frustration that Night Stalker must have felt when his cache was archived after spending so much effort to set it up.

However, I do not like the idea of giving so much power to little beaurocrats and ask permission to post coordinates to an interesting site. It is a virtual and it is not a secret location!

I think Night Stalker should take a deep breath, find another interesting site somewhere else, I'm sure there is one, and be content that he at least educated a NPS person about geocaching.

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

24.7k · April 25, 2003

Well now, this has been an interesting read.

After reading through it it appears that no good deed goes unpunihsed. The good deed being getting permision.

I will not stand in line and say permission is a bad thing. And until there is cache pre approval I won't think that a cacher should have their permission made worthless by someone acing them to a location.

Those of you who say suck it up are also saying by default that permission is worthless. Besides the only reason there is anything to suck up is because Seth! was a bad sport and requested that the other cache be archived. Night Stalker could (and should) make the same request on the other cache but didn't. This wasn't an issue until the cache was archived. Live and let live mean anything?

Moun10bike, I know you hang with Seth! but I have a hard time seeing you agreeing with making the permision issue a moot point if someone does take the time to get it. Sure is a virtual, but so what? Speed trumps permission if there can be only one?

This problem will crop up again until we have a valid pre-approval process.

If this thread doesn't solve things by Jeremy one way or the other, the next level of appeal is the NPS. I don't think Night Stalker wants to go there.

Overall though I have the feeling that the concenus is that Night Stalkers cache should stay which was the entire point.

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

Wherever you go there you are.

24.7k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MuzzleBlast!:
However, I do not like the idea of giving so much power to little beaurocrats and ask permission to post coordinates to an interesting site. It is a virtual and it is not a secret location!

True enough, the point was't to require permssion, but that if you did take the time to get it, to not be slammed for it.

There is vast difference between the two ways of seeing the problem.

Some others pointed out the time frame. Sorry, but I just put in a cache at our zoo. It took 4 months from the word go to finalize it. Some things just take time, and the Feds take a little longer. For the record I did have a cache come up near my location while I was getting permission I spoke with that cache owner and unlike Seth!'s refusal this cache owner worked with me and now there are two caches. Funny thing that cooperation. This area is better off for it.

5.7k · April 25, 2003

If this would have happened to me, here's how it would have gone down. Since it's a virtual, I haven't lost anything but my time invested. So, what did my time invested get me so far? Some nice cooperation from the rangers on what I might want to ask for verification. I would present to Seth! my information and offer it to him, since he already has a cache in place since I started working with the rangers. If Seth! wants to use the info, great, if not, no big deal. People are going to come to the park regardless. I would probably post a find log on Seth! with a note of other things to look for if Seth! decided not to utilize my research. It is possible to work together as a team.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

April 25, 2003

I don't think it's required to ask permission for a virtual. Do I have to ask NPS permission to recommend any visitor in Colorado to take a drive/hike into Rocky Mountain NP? Isn't that pretty much what it is anyway.

I also think that Seth should learn to play with others better. I thought my dog was the only one to mark his territory with that much conviction while geocaching

April 25, 2003

How about a virtual multi where you have to visit both spots?

Seems like much ado about nothing - it's not like people actually win something by having people visit their caches.....do we???

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. - Ken Olsen, President, Digital Equipment, 1977

38.2k · April 25, 2003

quote:
If this thread doesn't solve things by Jeremy one way or the other, the next level of appeal is the NPS. I don't think Night Stalker wants to go there.

I don't think the NPS gives a hoot one way or another, as long as there is no physical cache. And even if they did, there is nothing they could do about it. There is something called the 1st amendment that might get in their way.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 26, 2003

Oh Give me a break!

Wah Wah Wah I wanna be the first or the only one with a cahe here! Wah Wah Wah!

I could only read half way through these posts before giving up!

April 26, 2003

Arguing over a virtual is a waste of time. Jeremy, please make a final verdict on this.

I would simply allow both of them, so both sides can walk away with what they wanted in the first place.

THEN...

The rules/guidelines/etc... should be ammended to clarify this situation, whatever decision is made by TPTB. This could prevent this from happening again. If permission is the deciding factor, so be it. If it's first come, first served, OK. We already have a .1 mile guideline. This should have been enforced by the approver with regard to the second cache (Night Stalker's). This thread would not exist.

April 26, 2003

I understand everyones frustration. Since besides the golden spike, there are only 2 other possibile virts in the entire state. The Tabernacle and the Great Salt Lake. No wonder there is a battle over the rights. My advice, besides moving, since it's a virt it doesn't need permission and the first poster gets to keep it. The Geocaching folks are following their own rules and we should try to encourage that.

I have my own little world. But it's OK...they know me here.

6.4k · April 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:
Arguing over a virtual is a waste of time. Jeremy, please make a final verdict on this.

I would simply allow both of them, so both sides can walk away with what they wanted in the first place.

THEN...

The rules/guidelines/etc... should be ammended to clarify this situation, whatever decision is made by TPTB. This could prevent this from happening again. If permission is the deciding factor, so be it. If it's first come, first served, OK. We already have a .1 mile guideline. This should have been enforced by the approver with regard to the second cache (Night Stalker's). This thread would not exist.

I think it looks like Jeremy DID make a final verdict on this. One cache remained. One was archived.

Both parties agree permission was not required to place a cache there.

Both parties seem to agree that there was nothing wrong with the first cache.

A human cache approver made a mistake and approved the second cache. It should never have been, since the 2nd cache does violate the guidelines for placing a cache. OMG, a person made a mistake! There's something for the history books!

When the mistake was pointed out, the cache in violation was archived.

We've had something like 3 different threads trying to argue that the second cache should be reinstated, against the rules of this website, because he went through the trouble to get permission he didn't need to get.

Now, for the second time in a month, I've heard someone threaten legal action if their cache isn't approved. THAT is just too funny. I would REALLY love to see someone walk into a courtroom and explain that he's suing because a privately owned website won't let him publish something on their website that they don't want there

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

April 27, 2003

I own some acreage within the boundaries of a National Forest. The property is posted Private Property, No Trespassing, No Hunting, No Fishing, etc. at the gate. The 'gate' at the entrance to the property consists of two posts with a chain across, which can easily be stepped over or walked around (notwithstanding the aforementioned signs).

Does someone have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache of coordinates on my property? Do they have a 'right' to post a 'virtual' cache on the boundry of my property, or nearby in the National Forest, thereby increasing traffic and the ills that go along with the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic?

To me as a property owner, the answer is a resounding 'NO' on both counts.

The correct thing to do would be to ask permission from the owner of the property beforehand ...virtual or not, so that the property owner can have input on the matter, and decide whether or not the increased traffic is to his/her benefit, and how to deal with said traffic.

Anyone who says differently is obviously not a property owner themself. How would you like it if I placed a 'virtual' cache on the street in front of your house? Would you like the increased traffic, trash, whatever, that would accumulate because of it? I sincerely doubt it.

Geocachers need to think first before they act, and permission should be encouraged, not punished. If the parties involved cannot agree on a solution after a 'good faith' dialogue, then the virtual cache without permission should be canned, and the one that followed the rules and obtained permission first should be enabled.

[This message was edited by clps on April 27, 2003 at 03:08 AM.]

When two caches collide, The follow up to Cache Wars.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment