Flagging Parks For Permisson

[+Bloencustoms]

I was wondering if there is currently any way for the approvers to flag areas they know are in the process of making policy, or decisions about caching. This way, new caches submitted during the negotiations will not be listed untill a policy is in place. There have been stories about the problems that arise when a cache is approved in an area where someone is attempting to gain permission. What can we do to ensure this won't be a problem in the future? Is there a way to make sure these areas are flagged so that all cache approvers will know of the situation to make better informed decisions when approving caches? For instance, a regional approver goes on vacation, and a new cache enters the queue. Another approver who is not aware of the particular regional issues sees the cache, and has to make a choice. It appears to meet all of the guidelines, but the area in question is in the process of making a decision or policy for caching. The new cache's approval could present a hurdle to those seeking permission for that area.

[+Doc-Dean]

Perhaps a link on one of the pages leading to a state by state list of what's off limits for that state

and which areas are in negotiations so don't rock the boat for now in that area...

[lessenergy]

That would be a great idea. In fact, why not expand on this idea and list the parks/areas that have any policy at all so that participants in the sport can review this info before placing or searching for a cache.

 

One list that is, "Areas with a geocache policy in place" along with a list by state etc and, if possible, links to the policy.

 

Another list that is, "Areas that are in the process of putting a policy in place" again organised by geographic area.

 

This info could even be reference on the individual cache pages with a check box - yes or no to the quesiton, "Area where geocache is placed has a policy on permission."

 

Les.

[+Renegade Knight]

My take is simple. Don't worry about it. If the park bans them until they iron out a policy then they are not approvable and you treat them like you would a cache on NPS land. If they don't have a policy they should be treated like any park that doesn't yet have one.

 

Once the policy is ironed out we can go back and have the owners check the park policy and make sure their caches comply. Both caches placed before the policy negotiations started and the ones placed during.

[+carleenp]

If you have a local geocaching organization and are working on a park permission, you might ask the organization to announce that to its members and request that caches not be placed there while the negotiations are going on. If the organization isn't already involved, ask for their support, which could also help in negotiations.

Edited December 20, 2003 by carleenp

[+NJ Admin]

I was wondering if there is currently any way for the approvers to flag areas they know are in the process of making policy, or decisions about caching. This way, new caches submitted during the negotiations will not be listed untill a policy is in place. There have been stories about the problems that arise when a cache is approved in an area where someone is attempting to gain permission. What can we do to ensure this won't be a problem in the future? Is there a way to make sure these areas are flagged so that all cache approvers will know of the situation to make better informed decisions when approving caches? For instance, a regional approver goes on vacation, and a new cache enters the queue. Another approver who is not aware of the particular regional issues sees the cache, and has to make a choice. It appears to meet all of the guidelines, but the area in question is in the process of making a decision or policy for caching. The new cache's approval could present a hurdle to those seeking permission for that area.

While not perfect, we do have systems in place for this. Right now it's all done manually. That works for a group of 30 or so cache reviewers to use. It wouldn't work so well for 150,000 geocachers. Hopefully there will be something like it included with the new website. That would make our job easier as well as the cache hider's.

[the 5 little bears]

I was wondering if there is currently any way for the approvers to flag areas they know are in the process of making policy, or decisions about caching. This way, new caches submitted during the negotiations will not be listed untill a policy is in place. There have been stories about the problems that arise when a cache is approved in an area where someone is attempting to gain permission. What can we do to ensure this won't be a problem in the future? Is there a way to make sure these areas are flagged so that all cache approvers will know of the situation to make better informed decisions when approving caches? For instance, a regional approver goes on vacation, and a new cache enters the queue. Another approver who is not aware of the particular regional issues sees the cache, and has to make a choice. It appears to meet all of the guidelines, but the area in question is in the process of making a decision or policy for caching. The new cache's approval could present a hurdle to those seeking permission for that area.

Great idea, I want to be first to have a flag put up for all the parks around my local area and as soon as I get around to putting caches there i'll let you know I have permision

[+Bloencustoms]

Great idea, I want to be first to have a flag put up for all the parks around my local area and as soon as I get around to putting caches there i'll let you know I have permision

Huh? Do you mean to say that you would knowingly place a cache in a park that is developing a policy, even if it might hinder the process?

[+welch]

Great idea, I want to be first to have a flag put up for all the parks around my local area and as soon as I get around to putting caches there i'll let you know I have permision

Huh? Do you mean to say that you would knowingly place a cache in a park that is developing a policy, even if it might hinder the process?

I was trying to figure that out as well... But I think what they were saying (as a joke???) is they would 'flag' all the parks, and then report back as they get to them(like reserving a whole park for themselves).

[+Bloencustoms]

Great idea, I want to be first to have a flag put up for all the parks around my local area and as soon as I get around to putting caches there i'll let you know I have permision

Huh? Do you mean to say that you would knowingly place a cache in a park that is developing a policy, even if it might hinder the process?

I was trying to figure that out as well... But I think what they were saying (as a joke???) is they would 'flag' all the parks, and then report back as they get to them(like reserving a whole park for themselves).

Ah, ok. That makes much more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. I need to go read some good jokes so I can recognize humor when it's staring me in the face.

[+Team Tierra Buena]

Perhaps a link on one of the pages leading to a state by state list of what's off limits for that state

and which areas are in negotiations so don't rock the boat for now in that area...

It's not on the geocaching.com website, but what you're suggesting sounds very much like what we are trying to do at the Geocaching Policy website.

 

There's no reason we couldn't note park systems that are "in negotiations"; just let us know about them through the email address at the site.

 

Steve

[+Bloencustoms]

Perhaps a link on one of the pages leading to a state by state list of what's off limits for that state

and which areas are in negotiations so don't rock the boat for now in that area...

It's not on the geocaching.com website, but what you're suggesting sounds very much like what we are trying to do at the Geocaching Policy website.

 

There's no reason we couldn't note park systems that are "in negotiations"; just let us know about them through the email address at the site.

 

Steve

I have recently discovered the geocacching policy site, and it in fact inspired this thread. It's a great resource. Just today, I referred some park officals to that site because they wished to learn more about existing caching policies to make a better informed decision. Perhaps it would merit mentioning that it is ok to list parks in the process of developing policy in a prominent place on the site. I'll go ahead and submit the park, and update info as it becomes available.