Cache Policy For Parks

[+Dan-oh]

A local park/open space in my area is formulating a caching policy. Without going into our particular politics (why does politics always surround public open space?) I'd like to hear some other agencies "official" caching policy. What's their take on containers, off trail proximity, individual permissions, cache contents, etc. Either a few items or a link would be great.

 

I'm not sure when they will have the policy out but I'd like to know what makes an acceptable policy for cachers and what's bad policy for cachers. We'll need to know good vs bad and what's acceptable in a land managers eyes. Any recommendations while we're at it?

[+briansnat]

Of the policies out there, some that I don't like are ones that require clear containers, require substantial payment for a permit (a buck or two is fine, $25 isn't), require liability insurance, or severly limit cache life (2 years is OK, 6 months isn't).

 

Arkansas State Parks and PA have some common sense policies. North Carolina State Parks, which requires a $25 permit and renewal after 6 months doesn't.

 

If I were a geocacher working with the authorities, I'd be very happy if Arkansas's policies were adopted, with except perhaps the 2 year limit. I'd prefer a yearly renewal with an open ended cache life...or maybe PA's 3 year limit.

Edited April 28, 2004 by briansnat

[+welch]

http://www.geocachingpolicy.com/

[+The Leprechauns]

I kind of like the policy for the Pittsburgh City Parks:

 

EVENT ORGANIZER: So, I am glad we were able to do this CITO Event and clean up this park for you.

 

PARK GUY: You did an amazing job. We really appreciate it!

 

ME: So you don't have any problem with our playing the geocaching game in the City Parks, and hiding some containers in tree stumps and logs, right?

 

PARK GUY: Heck no. Have fun.

 

Barring a nice common sense "policy" like that one, land managers who desire a more formalized policy are most typically concerned about the following issues:

 

1. Where is the cache?

Answer: Identify the location on a permit form.

 

2. Who can we contact if there's a problem?

Answer: Put owner contact information on a permit form.

 

3. How long will it be there for, and what if it turns into litter or creates social trails?

Answer: Establish a reasonable time limit (one year but renewable, three years, etc.) This can be good for geocachers AND land managers, as caches in a popular park will "turn over" periodically, allowing veteran cachers new finds when new caches replace retired caches. Provide for earlier revocation if the cache is creating a problem.

 

4. How do we keep people from thinking it's a bomb?

Good Answer: LABEL the outside of the container as a geocache that's permitted by the park. Bad Answer: Clear containers (not as sturdy as ammo boxes, and with the way they're hidden, you can't see what's inside anyways).

 

5. Will there be one in every tree stump?

Answer: Point to gc.com's proximity guideline (.1 mile separation requirement) and their own ability to deny a new submission or set a more strict separation guideline like .5 miles.

 

6. Will unsavory items be left in these caches?

Answer: Point to gc.com's policy on prohibited items (knives, weapons, ammo, explosives, etc.) and invite the land manager to mirror this in their permit form.

 

7. What about liability if someone gets hurt doing this?

Answer: Point to gc.com's liability disclaimer where each seeker acknowledges they are accepting any and all risks. Note that there's not a lot of difference between geocaching and bird watching, hiking or other common park activities. If there is still a concern, the land manager can include a disclaimer of liability on the permit form. Avoid any policy where the cache owner agrees to be responsible for insurance, indemnifying the governmental body, etc.

 

Hopefully the end result is a one-page permit form (maybe front and back of a page). Pennsylvania, where I live, has a very cooperative attitude for geocaches in state parks and state forests, but the paperwork is a rather cumbersome two-step process.

 

For my money, West Virginia has one of the friendliest policies I've ever seen. They even feature all the approved geocaches on their State Park Website. Progressive land managers like the state parks in my caching territory of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia recognize that geocaching attracts the kind of people -- and their tourist dollars -- that they want to have using their facilities.

[+briansnat]

For my money, West Virginia has one of the friendliest policies I've ever seen.

 

I don't like their July 1st expiration policy and requirement to move, or remove the cache. Other than that, it looks like a cache friendly state.

[+The Leprechauns]

Brian, unless I'm remembering wrong, in informal discussions the WV Parks personnel have said that if there is no problem with the current location, the cache can stay in place. They just want an annual opportunity to have a look at it.

 

And even if it is just a one year permit, it is still way cool to have each and every cache featured on their website. Hopefully this will attract new people to geocaching. West Virginia could use a few more caches and cachers, given how beautiful it is in the forests and mountains there.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I guess Oregon is pretty backwards compared to those states. I've asked a ranger if placing a cache is cool, he said it was, I placed it.

[+Dan-oh]

Thanks for all the great info and links!

[+Right Wing Wacko]

It is my understanding (and those involved can correct me if I'm wrong) that when we were negoatiating guidlines with the Washington State Parks, originally they wanted see-thru containers. They were then convinced by WSGA people that Ammo Boxes were better because they were animal safe, and Tupperware is not.

 

After all, since they Park Ranger was going to know about it, there should not be a problem with it being mistaken for a bomb by the authorities.

 

Unfortunatly, before the policy was put into place there was a change in administration at the parks department and we had to start all over []

[+climberX]

I would kind of like to know what politics you think are at play here. The SDRPs current policy is one of no geocaching at all, the construction of a policy that allows the activity is a total 180. I think that would be a good thing.

 

The policy will include a cache registration form as well as guidelines concerning responsibility of owner and placement of cache. There will be no fee what so ever just the registration. Most of what is required is information you already have to provide to geocaching.com.

 

The underlying concern for the SDRP is that we know exactly what is being placed in the park. This has never been about politics but the preservation of natural resources within the park.

[+Renegade Knight]

I guess Oregon is pretty backwards compared to those states.  I've asked a ranger if placing a cache is cool, he said it was, I placed it.

Thats the perfect policy since geocaching is a begnine use of the land. It is the first and formost policy we would like to see.

 

Edit: The second level we would like to see is to cover the concerns expressed by ClimberX in thier last paragraph. That can be handled quite simply by knowing where the cache is at to monitor for social trails and so forth.

Edited April 28, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Dan-oh]

I would kind of like to know what politics you think are at play here. ..

 

My comment was more about public open space and politics surrounding it, not SDRP and Geocaching. I used without going into our particular politics to imply that not everyone is happy. I'm looking forward to an official caching policy from the SDRP. Owner responsibility and registration is a good thing.

 

I think there's no denying that politics IS invloved in open space planning and land management. Just the mere attempt at allowing recreation while preserving an open space assures someone will be put out.

 

Hypothetical questions:

- why was a trail closed off?

- what is a designated trail?

- who gets to designate a trail?

- what detemines damage to an area?

- why does my dog need to be on a leash?

- do all user groups get equal access to a park?

- why do horses get to use that trail but not bikers?

- why does a park close at night?

- why is my access limited while that paid group gets the park?

- why can't I ride a motorcycle in the park?

 

There are several sides to each and there's no pleasing everyone with those answers, thus politics.

[Parsa]

I would kind of like to know what politics you think are at play here. The SDRPs current policy is one of no geocaching at all, the construction of a policy that allows the activity is a total 180. I think that would be a good thing.

 

The policy will include a cache registration form as well as guidelines concerning responsibility of owner and placement of cache. There will be no fee what so ever just the registration. Most of what is required is information you already have to provide to geocaching.com.

 

The underlying concern for the SDRP is that we know exactly what is being placed in the park. This has never been about politics but the preservation of natural resources within the park.

climberX,

 

I think the fact that San Dieguito River Park had a no-caching policy was the politics he was refering to, he just didn't want to go into the specifics as that was covered in another thread. If we can officially geocache in the SDRP, I think Dan-oh and everyone else would be grateful.

 

Once the policy is in place, then we won't be making the rangers nuts.

Hehe.

 

Parsa

[+Renegade Knight]

You should see the politics in my job. I have to cringe as I watch cities give in to vocal factions and heavy hitter businessmen who's gnashing and wailing will in the end cost the project far more money than it needed to spend. They will then point at me, and say "Gee why is this project so damned expensive." The answer of course is "Because you are stupid and didn't listen to me, my boss, my co-workers, and everyone else who knows the game and who know the option you hated was actually winner. Instead screamed and yelled and got your way. Now that the option you nixed is back on the table we have to spend yet more money repeating that same work done on a bad option, to evaluate and design the winning option." What I will say of course is that "When there is a lot of interest in a project the controversy will cause a lot more work due to the higher level of scrutiny that it will undergo to make sure that everyone’s competing interests are considered."

[+climberX]

Points taken. At least you got me to respond.

[+crzycrzy]

Funny isn't it, how whenever any activitity is involved, it quickly becomes a case of "how can I use the authority to make money?"

First geocaching starts free... (Well, barring the cost of a GPSr)

Then we make a premium membership for $30 (I am all for that for many reasons I will start on another thread.)

Next it will cost $5 to place a cache just about anywhere. (You do the math, there are 96132 caches x $5 = half a million $ roughly, for an "annual" permit.)

Before you know it, it will probably cost a fee to find the caches, and then what ?

How much fun is the game the more government and other organizations devalue the playing of it.

How much would it cost you to go hiking in the same park?

 

Now, I know that there are some legitimate concerns such as damage to parks, increased traffic through parks, etc... But aren't the parks there for that purpose ?

Otherwise there would be tract homes built there.

At some point, we must recognize the incredulity of the fact that someone wants to charge money in order to utilize the "public park" system.

Perhaps we can go further and create a geo-tax system where Geocachers placing caches in larger states with more park systems would pay more, or maybe a flat tax for all geo-cachers?

We could all register with geocaching.gov ?

Maybe we could get $5 back every year.

(I am speaking foolishly, but you hopefully see the point.)

It is ridiculous for me to see what I see happening.

But perhaps not surprising.

Edited April 28, 2004 by DudleyDoWrong