Harriman Cache Opinions

[+Team Bam Bam]

We (Team Bam Bam) recently set up a multi in Harriman. We have had some issues getting it approved and would like to put the issue out there to you 'crusty' caching types and see what you think. I will try to be as accurate and un-biased as possible while presenting the story.

 

The basics: the cache is a multi in and arround Lake Kennauakie in Harriman State Park. Each stage is only accessible by boat (or a long ice hike in winter). The cache covers about 4 miles total and is rated at a 3/5. It was set up 9/6/04.

 

NY Admin's contention: One of the stages (stage 1) violates the 528 foot rule (ie caches must be at least 528ft from other caches) as it is 276 feet from AvroAir's 'Powder Monkey'. NY Admin is also concerned about the area being 'saturated'. NY Admin suggested we move stage 1 in order to comply. Please forgive me if I have misrepresented anything here.

 

Our contention: The 528ft rule is to prevent confusion at cache sites such as finding one while looking for another. This is clearly not a problem as this stage of the multi is on an island while 'Powder Monkey' is on the mainland. We knew about the proximity issue and looked for an alternate island in the area but there are none. Relocation of this stage would involve moving it to the mainland, defeating the concept of this cache. As for the 'saturation' issue, the final stage is nowhere near this area. Even if this area were over-saturated (which is debatable), the area of the final stage is not. we have been informed that the real issue with the cache is not so much somebody accidentally finding it while looking for Powder Monkey but rather the oversaturation issue. If this were true the reccomended solution would not have been to relocate stage 1.

 

This cache is unique to the area and we had a lot of fun creating it, from concept to placement. It is not the type of cache people will 'bag' during a 10-cache frenzy some Saturday. This cache cannot be done as an afterthought as you need special equipment. As a result it is not likely to be visited all that often. Can a cache really contribute to oversaturation if it is visited so infrequently?

 

The Geocaching guidlines clearly state that exceptions can be made, particularly if a cache is unique or 'pushes the envelope'. We think our island hopping multi qualifies for such an exception and welcome your opinion.

 

This post was only placed after first appealing the initial rejection by NY Admin and is the reccomended next step as per the Groundspeak guidlines.

Edited September 9, 2004 by Team Bam Bam

[+JMBella]

First, I commend you on handling this in a respectful manner. NY Admin is just following the guidelines that has been given to him by Groundspeak.

 

The saturation guideline:

Cache Saturation

 

The approvers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the site approvers may strongly encourage you to create a multi-cache

 

It seems you have a very legitimate argument to have your cache approved. Perhaps if this was any other park this would not even be an issue. The guideline's purpose is two fold. As you said:

The 528ft rule is to prevent confusion at cache sites such as finding one while looking for another. This is clearly not a problem as this stage of the multi is on an island while 'Powder Monkey' is on the mainland.

So you've covered that issue, there is no way someone will find your cache while hunting for avro's or visa versa. However, the second half of that guideline may still be an unresolved issue.

but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area

In my opinion, your cache sounds unique enough that it should be allowed and if it was any other park, I suspect it probably would be.

 

Is it possible to move just part 1 to the main land and still have the rest of them on islands? I know you said it would defeat the purpose, but people would still need a boat to complete the cache. My point is, maybe there is some compromise there somewhere that should be explored.

[+BMSquared]

As one involved in helping place the cache (and the one providing the majority of the canoeing skills and power) I can confirm that their is NO possible way of confusing the two caches.

 

We visited both caches. I had already logged Powder Monkey. I don't see how anyone could stumble upon Team Bam Bam's stage one. In fact, I am confident that two cachers could be at either cache simultaneously and not realize what the other cacher was doing.

[+Team DEMP]

Or Avroair can archive his powder monkey cache.

[+briansnat]

NY Admin is also concerned about the area being 'saturated'.

 

This is a legit concern, particularly in Harriman, but there is no danger of a saturation of high quality, unique caches anywhere (and this appears to be one). If it was just another ammo box in the woods, then I'd have to agree with NY Admin, but this isn't the case here.

 

The .1 mile rule is more of a guideline and has been ignored in the past by approvers under similar circumstances, particularly where there was some natural barrier between the two caches like a lake, cliff or stream. That seems to be the case here, so I would hope that once NY Admin thinks this one through, he will re-consider.

Edited September 10, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Bam Bam]

Or Avroair can archive his powder monkey cache.

I would relocate the thing entirely before I would ask someone to alter an established cache.

[+briansnat]

Or Avroair can archive his powder monkey cache.

I would relocate the thing entirely before I would ask someone to alter an established cache.

Avroair does take bribes.

[+Team Bam Bam]

Or Avroair can archive his powder monkey cache.

I would relocate the thing entirely before I would ask someone to alter an established cache.

Avroair does take bribes.

I'm not frisking him!

[avroair]

Ain't you guys got anything better to do than dream about being frisked!

 

Anyways, I could archive my cache, but then my account would be suspended for setting up a temporary cache. I can work with you on this TBB if you would like since I know the area fairly well.

[+briansnat]

Ain't you guys got anything better to do than dream about being frisked!

 

Anyways, I could archive my cache, but then my account would be suspended for setting up a temporary cache. I can work with you on this TBB if you would like since I know the area fairly well.

You could move yours without incurring a ban. A move of 250 feet could be done without admin involvement and would put the caches more than .10 mile apart.

[+fosterbass]

You could move yours without incurring a ban. A move of 250 feet could be done without admin involvement and would put the caches more than .10 mile apart.

"One smart fella, he felt smart."

[mortonfox]

You could move yours without incurring a ban. A move of 250 feet could be done without admin involvement and would put the caches more than .10 mile apart.

Unfortunately, that would move Powder Monkey off its nice perch.

[Keystone]

Hello,

 

In following this topic, I noticed part way down that the name of the volunteer reviewer whose action's being discussed had shifted from "NY Admin" to "NJ Admin." Just for the record, New York Admin (spelled out) is the reviewer who made this call. I am sure that, if you continue to discuss this constructively and are able to come up with suggestions and justifications, that New York Admin would be glad to listen to them. New York Admin is not an active forum participant so I would suggest compiling the results of your discussion into an e-mail to New York Admin.

 

Thanks.

[+Alan2]

Does NYAdmin know that one cache is on an island and the other's on the mainland? Maybe their maps don't show this differentiation.

[+briansnat]

New York Admin is not an active forum participant so I would suggest compiling the results of your discussion into an e-mail to New York Admin.

 

I would think admins should check the local forums regularly.

[+JMBella]

Does NYAdmin know that one cache is on an island and the other's on the mainland? Maybe their maps don't show this differentiation.

I'm under the impression he or she does. I would think the approvers look at topos too but I could be wrong.

 

Bam Bam, maybe email New York Admin and let him know this is being discussed.

[+Team Bam Bam]

I informed NY Admin as soon as I made this post and invited his/her participation in the discussion.

[+New York Admin]

I took the course of action on Team Bam Bam’s cache that Idid for two reasons. One which has been discussed already is the accidental find issue, and with the natural barrier could possibly be overlooked. The other reason and one which should be of utmost importance to everyone caching in New York is the over population issue. I’ve been in contact with Dominic Jacangelo Deputy Commissioner NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in Albany. They are well aware of geocaching and the amount of caches that are on their lands. While we have talked about the proximity issue they haven’t thrown out any numbers yet. You can bet they won’t be as generous as Groundspeak’s 528 feet. If they are talking with Mr. Wolf, or Mr. Frank from DEC then we are all in big trouble. DEC is talking a 1 mile separation and that’s only on cretin lands, others will still be outright banned. Yes, to your next question, we do have a shot at getting back onto some DEC land but that’s another issue and not ready for prime time yet. Back on topic, Sure I could list the cache for TBB but take a look at THIS MAP. This is the map Parks and Recreation office sees, do we want to add more fuel to their fire? Does this mean no more caches in state parks? Absolutely not but lets keep them spread out a little.

 

My suggestion to TBB was to either move the first micro to another island or maybe consider dropping the first micro altogether.

 

Weather a cache is a quality cache or a lame roadside quick stop has no bearing on the issue. Its not for me or any other cache reviewer to judge the quality of a cache as long as it meets posted guidelines.

[Keystone]

Yep, sometimes it's hard for the Groundspeak volunteer to look at the big picture regarding cache density, but we have to keep it in mind when enforcing the saturation guideline. A good example comes from a regional park system here in Pennsylvania. They took a look at the cache maps for other, more cache-dense metropolitan areas and said "wow, we don't ever want to look like that." Their recently adopted geocaching policy limits caches to two per park. Period. Doesn't matter if the park is 100 acres or 1000 acres. Two. Owners have 30 days to remove their existing caches and apply for the permits.

 

To a land manager, our caches are just dots on a map. They cannot tell if it is a lame dot or a cool dot... it is just a lot of geocaches to them. Could "too much of a good thing" be our downfall?

[+JMBella]

Sure I could list the cache for TBB but take a look at THIS MAP.

Geez, look at all that green on the Southern section of the park!!! There's enough room for another 10 - 95 more caches!!

 

Thanks for the insight NYA.

[+Team Bam Bam]

Forget it, I'll go get the dadgum thing. This has been an extremely frustrating end to a well thought out, reasonable request for an exception. I am clearly dissapointed in the inflexability.

[+Team Bam Bam]

Forget it, I'll go get the dadgum thing. This has been an extremely frustrating end to a well thought out, reasonable request for an exception. I am clearly dissapointed in the inflexability.

I'll go throw a box in the woods somewhere. To hell with quality as long as it meets the concrete spacing guidlines, right?

[mortonfox]

I'll go throw a box in the woods somewhere. To hell with quality as long as it meets the concrete spacing guidlines, right?

Did you read what New York Admin had to say? Especially about the potential pitfalls ahead in our relationship with the land managers? There is a lot more there than just the 0.1 mile spacing guideline.

[+Team Bam Bam]

I'll go throw a box in the woods somewhere. To hell with quality as long as it meets the concrete spacing guidlines, right?

Did you read what New York Admin had to say? Especially about the potential pitfalls ahead in our relationship with the land managers? There is a lot more there than just the 0.1 mile spacing guideline.

Of course I read it. The problem with that logic is this: The solution proposed was to move stage 1 to an alternate location. Does this really solve the saturation issue? As our first cache placed this was intended to be our 'signature cache'. that's why we spent so much time planning it and mapping it out. To relocate stage 1 would require a move to the mainland and would negate the theme of this cache as well as decreasing the quality of it. I'm not willing to do this. Why compromise quality when relocating stage 1 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to decrease the total number of caches in the area?

 

Addendum: All apologies for the tone of my last post, I've been dealing with this for a week now and am becoming frustrated. I understand the concerns of NY Admin but still contend that an exception is warranted in this case.

[+briansnat]

I'll go throw a box in the woods somewhere. To hell with quality as long as it meets the concrete spacing guidlines, right?

Did you read what New York Admin had to say? Especially about the potential pitfalls ahead in our relationship with the land managers? There is a lot more there than just the 0.1 mile spacing guideline.

Of course I read it. The problem with that logic is this: The solution proposed was to move stage 1 to an alternate location. Does this really solve the saturation issue? As our first cache placed this was intended to be our 'signature cache'. that's why we spent so much time planning it and mapping it out. To relocate stage 1 would require a move to the mainland and would negate the theme of this cache as well as decreasing the quality of it. I'm not willing to do this. Why compromise quality when relocating stage 1 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to decrease the total number of caches in the area?

 

Addendum: All apologies for the tone of my last post, I've been dealing with this for a week now and am becoming frustrated. I understand the concerns of NY Admin but still contend that an exception is warranted in this case.

You have a point. Until GC.COM's policy is that no more cache are allowed in Harriman, there is no reason you cache should be denied.

[Keystone]

The grounds for denial of the cache are as stated in the cache saturation rule, and go beyond the 528 foot guideline.

 

The topic originator needs to tone down his posts just a notch if he desires for a constructive dialogue to remain open on this subject. Thanks.

[+Alan2]

I'm sure everyone wants to do the right thing. But some issues have been raised I don't quite understand.

 

1. Does the admin intend to take areas off-limits because of behind the door conversations with various people in parks?

2. "Quote: Does this mean no more caches in state parks? Absolutely not but lets keep them spread out a little." What does that mean? Spread out?

 

How does a hider know in advance which areas will be denied after he spends enormous times hiding a cache? Frankly Silvermine Lake area has the same density. Does that mean it's off limits to additional caches? What about smaller parks elsewhere? You got to have a better standard than you're talking to park people and are worried. It's too arbitrary.

3. "Quote: While we have talked about the proximity issue they haven’t thrown out any numbers yet. You can bet they won’t be as generous as Groundspeak’s 528 feet. If they are talking with Mr. Wolf, or Mr. Frank from DEC then we are all in big trouble. DEC is talking a 1 mile separation and that’s only on cretin lands, others will still be outright banned. "

It seems the 528 rule is being inforced because of some preconceived belief that will stop the park people from creating rules. The 528 rule or rather allowing half that if caches are geographically separted by a major topo feature as always was the case, has been distorted into a belief the park people won't bother us at 528 rather than half that.

 

The problem is that it appears the caching rules are being magnified because of a preconceived belief parks people will stop geocaching. That may be true, in any case, but approval should not be based on that the way it is in this case as its arbitrary and no cachers will be able to hide with confidence that they will be refused for similar reason that the cannot know in advance.

[+JMBella]

I think TBB has a reasonable request. Future cache hiders may need to be warned that perhaps certain areas of Harriman may be under tighter scrutiny. The undeniable point they have is that by moving or dropping part one will have to effect on the amount of caches in the park.

Edited September 11, 2004 by JMBella

[+New York Admin]

Does the admin intend to take areas off-limits because of behind the door conversations with various people in parks?

Nothing has been made off limits. The cache was denied on the 528 foot rule and a waiver was not given to 257 feet (less than half the required distance) because of concerns by the State.

 

The 528 rule or rather allowing half that if caches are geographically separted by a major topo feature as always was the case, has been distorted into a belief the park people won't bother us at 528 rather than half that.

 

The last time I talked with the Parks and Recreation people they weren't real thrilled with our 528 policy. Now, if this cache is approved at 257 feet what's the message we are sending them about us. How can we make them believe we will follow their rules when we can't even follow our own.

 

Now that brings up another question. I didn't even ask TBB if he had obtained a "Special Use Permit" from the the park manager as required by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Maybe he did, I didn't ask.

 

I agree that this would be a top quality cache if in a different location. Take a look at Lake Tiorati or maybe Lake Stahahe. Both are well populated with islands and are in a much less cache dense area.

[+briansnat]

How can we make them believe we will follow their rules when we can't even follow our own.

 

I thought it was a guideline that is often set aside speciifically in instances like this one where there is a natural barrier between the caches.

[+Team Bam Bam]

Now that brings up another question. I didn't even ask TBB if he had obtained a "Special Use Permit" from the the park manager as required by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Maybe he did, I didn't ask.

 

How many "special use permits" have you required before approving caches in the past? Is this a real concern or an effort to deflect attention from the real debate which, in the court of public opinion, you seem to be losing.

 

I am certainly willing to make adjustments to the cache so long as such adjustments do not decrease the quality of the cache. I will contact you by e-mail with some ideas.

[+Team Bam Bam]

I'm closing this topic. It has served it's purpose. Thanks to those of you who offered opinions. I hope we can reach an agreement and announce the approval of this cache soon.