Nys Parks & Recreation Survey

[+JMBella]

The GC number is not required. The copy I received the park was not good at all so I had to essentially retype the whole thing. I had a momentary brain freak and added that in without thinking about it. I changed it back. It doesn't really matter because the park HQ for region 1 can't even access the GC.com website. Yes, you read that correctly. They've never even seen the website.

[+JMBella]

The application JMBella links to is a little different from the one the State Parks issues. The official one doesn't ask "Waypoint" nor does it ask "Your Geocaching Name". If your region will accept that one, good for you, but up here they want the application on the official 14 inch form they designed. I tried to photo copy one and it didn't fly, I had to rewrite the application on one they printed.

 

This is a great example of the right hand/left hand thing. The form I received directly from the region HQ was already a photo copy. They also gave me specific permission to put it on the website.

[+GPS Guy]

I just got my permits from another state park today. I will have to archive one multi cache in the spring to comply with the 5 part rule. I will also have to move one part of my multi cache a few feet due to the manager's concern for a hazard that caused a problem in the past, unrelated to caching. (I had told him exactly where the cache was. Doh!)

Once again, the process was easy. I called ahead to meet with him, marked up a park map, filled out the permits and now have the stickers for my pre-existing caches.

I have no info on the 1/4 mile rule, as my 2 caches are over the limit, and I registered first, so no conflicts with any other cachers. It remains to be seen if the manager is concerned about strictly enforcing that. I remain hopeful that he is not.

By the way. His opinion is that the 20 foot rule will be more likely to cause stub paths to form, compared to hiding further from the trail. He allowed me to exceed 20 feet from the trail.

[+Alan2]

As it is, I don't see anyway to place a cache without visiting the cache site at least twice before getting the approval. Once to place the cache and again to apply the almighty sticker. It's unlikely to affect us much on Long Island as the longest hike would only be about 2 miles each way. But for parks like Harriman where it could be several mile to get to a cache, that's gonna suck big time for some people.

Which is why I said when this issue just got started that in one year we'll have 1/10 the number of caches in Harriman we have now. And the interested but not overly dedicated hider will not be able to hide nice caches in these parks upping the amount of junk caches in other areas.

 

Unfortunately!

[+JMBella]

As it is, I don't see anyway to place a cache without visiting the cache site at least twice before getting the approval. Once to place the cache and again to apply the almighty sticker. It's unlikely to affect us much on Long Island as the longest hike would only be about 2 miles each way. But for parks like Harriman where it could be several mile to get to a cache, that's gonna suck big time for some people.

Which is why I said when this issue just got started that in one year we'll have 1/10 the number of caches in Harriman we have now. And the interested but not overly dedicated hider will not be able to hide nice caches in these parks upping the amount of junk caches in other areas.

 

Unfortunately!

Hopefully, the dedicated cache hider will be OK with visiting the cache twice.

[+Perfect Tommy]

I see no prohibition against a cache hider delegating his responsibility to conduct the biannual check of his cache to another 'cacher. A cache seeker, familiar with the Park's new guidelines, could check on another's cache, (hopefully) upload a picture of its contents and post a note that the contents were in compliance with the Park's guidelines. Why couldn't the cache owner rely on such a report, particularly if from an experienced and trusted fellow 'cacher? There are already many conscientious 'cachers out there who maintain and often upgrade caches of others. Although the cache and its contents remain the responsibility of the cache owner, perhaps we can help the cache placers fulfill their biannual obligation by, as part of a find or note log, providing detailed reports on the condition and contents of the cache. Just a thought.

[+JMBella]

I see no prohibition against a cache hider delegating his responsibility to conduct the biannual check of his cache to another 'cacher. A cache seeker, familiar with the Park's new guidelines, could check on another's cache, (hopefully) upload a picture of its contents and post a note that the contents were in compliance with the Park's guidelines. Why couldn't the cache owner rely on such a report, particularly if from an experienced and trusted fellow 'cacher? There are already many conscientious 'cachers out there who maintain and often upgrade caches of others. Although the cache and its contents remain the responsibility of the cache owner, perhaps we can help the cache placers fulfill their biannual obligation by, as part of a find or note log, providing detailed reports on the condition and contents of the cache. Just a thought.

Excellent idea.

[+junglehair]

I see no prohibition against a cache hider delegating his responsibility to conduct the biannual check of his cache to another 'cacher. A cache seeker, familiar with the Park's new guidelines, could check on another's cache, (hopefully) upload a picture of its contents and post a note that the contents were in compliance with the Park's guidelines. Why couldn't the cache owner rely on such a report, particularly if from an experienced and trusted fellow 'cacher? There are already many conscientious 'cachers out there who maintain and often upgrade caches of others. Although the cache and its contents remain the responsibility of the cache owner, perhaps we can help the cache placers fulfill their biannual obligation by, as part of a find or note log, providing detailed reports on the condition and contents of the cache. Just a thought.

I also think this is a great idea. It would look good to the parks people too, to see that we are checking on each other's caches and making sure everything is safe and family friendly.

[+jonboy]

I stopped in the Fahnestock State Park Office and had a friendly talk with Bill Bauman, the park super and Paul Kaufman, his deputy. He gave me permits for "Candle in the Wind", "Clarence's Chimney" and "Benedict Arnold's Roost". He will begin the two year limit from the date the permit is issued and was not particular that the caches had to be 20 feet from the trail, only that they had to be near it. We agreed that I would remove one more cache, "Walk This Way, Master" because it it is in a rattlesnake denning area on Breakneck Ridge. The process was very painless and bodes well for geocaching in Fahnestock and Hudson Highlands State Park. I skied out and put a sticker on "Clarence's Chimney", he said I could put the other stickers on whenever I got a chance.

Edited March 2, 2005 by jonboy

[+headmj]

I just finished the application process for Summit Fire Tower at Allegany State park and the process was very painless. The folks at the park are square shooters and enjoy seeing the park used safely. Right now my cache is really only accessible on skis and I won't tag the bottle until early April but that won't be a problem. I see this as giving the park managment a chance to review what's being done. There was one cache there that was a lot of fun, but the first location was plainly dangerous. Yes I did it but wondered who would finally fall. I think we will find the managers of teh bigger sites pretty friendly. Most of them are outdoorsmen at heart not bureaucrats.

 

They asked that I include an "Approved" notice in my listing and it look really neat.

[+The Leprechauns]

Excellent reports from jonboy and headmj. Good work! This sounds more like what I'm used to hearing next door to y'all in Pennsylvania. Our process is pretty bureaucratic but in practice the people you meet at the park office are very, very nice.

 

The logo that headmj placed on his cache page is a good idea to help spread the word about the permits, and to know which ones are compliant:

 

 

This looks a *lot* like the logo that Tonsil and I developed for statewide use in Pennsylvania:

 

[avroair]

Excellent reports from jonboy and headmj. Good work! This sounds more like what I'm used to hearing next door to y'all in Pennsylvania. Our process is pretty bureaucratic but in practice the people you meet at the park office are very, very nice.

 

The logo that headmj placed on his cache page is a good idea to help spread the word about the permits, and to know which ones are compliant:

 

 

This looks a *lot* like the logo that Tonsil and I developed for statewide use in Pennsylvania:

 

Great progress. But we still haven't heard about the huge amount of caches currently out there 'illegally' how are they enforcing pickup and removal. Have they asked geocaching.com to delist them?

[+jonboy]

My sense of what the Fahnestock park manager was hoping for was voluntary compliance. He did not seem in a big hurry to have caches in his park delisted, he seems to be hoping that the majority of cache owners will obtain cache permits once they see that it not being made difficult. As he said to me, he does not see 20 caches in two parks consisting of 20,000 acres as being an urgent problem. He will probably move eventually to compell compliance, but hopes by then that he will be dealing with a handful of caches. Things may look a little more pressing to the Harriman/ Bear Mt Park Superintendent, with 200+ caches on 52,000 acres, or about four times the cache density.

[avroair]

I forgot to call Harriman / Bear Mtn today. A woman named Stephanie has been placed in charge of the permits, she was away from the office on Monday due to the snow. I will try to remember to call her again tomorrow.

 

Encouraging news from the other parks so far. Another way we can help put ourselves in good graces could be to organize a number of CITO events around the state for April.

[+GPS Guy]

Encouraging news from the other parks so far. Another way we can help put ourselves in good graces could be to organize a number of CITO events around the state for April.

 

We are planning a CITO event for Schodack Island State Park.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Marc G.

[+junglehair]

The Western New York group is planning a CITO at Letchworth State Park.

[+Rusty O Junk]

Our National CITO day event will be held at Schodack Island State park this year and a second event will be held at Moreau Lake State Park in May to not conflict with the Schodack Island event or divide our group. The parks are both quite close to the capital district and both have asked for our help.

[+peter0224]

Here is the link to the Capital Region 2005 CITO Event

[+Walkin' Ed]

Things may look a little more pressing to the Harriman/ Bear Mt Park Superintendent, with 200+ caches on 52,000 acres, or about four times the cache density

 

Before people started archiving their caches ther were only 137 caches in Harriman. Today there are still only about 108. That's about one cache every 500 acres.

[+headmj]

We probably won't see any enforcement action until after 4/15 which is the date the caches are supposed to be labeled by. I think that the voluntary compliance will be very high. If somebody could not get to ASP to put their sticker on they could conatct me and I will try to get to boxes. Some folks live a long way from their caches.

 

Mike

[+JMBella]

Excellent reports from jonboy and headmj. Good work! This sounds more like what I'm used to hearing next door to y'all in Pennsylvania. Our process is pretty bureaucratic but in practice the people you meet at the park office are very, very nice.

 

The logo that headmj placed on his cache page is a good idea to help spread the word about the permits, and to know which ones are compliant:

 

 

This looks a *lot* like the logo that Tonsil and I developed for statewide use in Pennsylvania:

 

Nicely done.

[+Perfect Tommy]

We probably won't see any enforcement action until after 4/15 which is the date the caches are supposed to be labeled by. I think that the voluntary compliance will be very high.

 

Not all cache owners read the forums. Is Groundspeak doing anything (e.g., email notification or admin logs on cache pages) to notify cache owners of the new permit requirements?

[+JMBella]

We probably won't see any enforcement action until after 4/15 which is the date the caches are supposed to be labeled by. I think that the voluntary compliance will be very high.

 

Not all cache owners read the forums. Is Groundspeak doing anything (e.g., email notification or admin logs on cache pages) to notify cache owners of the new permit requirements?

I think a lot of that responsibility will have to fall on the local organizations and the cachers that do read the forums.

[+jonboy]

Before people started archiving their caches ther were only 137 caches in Harriman.  Today there are still only about 108.  That's about one cache every 500 acres.

I stand corrected Ed, I just did my own count of physical caches actually in Harriman/Bear Mt Park and came up with 105, two in Storm King, one in Fort Montgomery HS, five in Fahnestock, thirteen in the Hudson Highlands, seven in Rockefeller SP, nine in Hook Mt SP, two in High Tor SP, one in Blauvelt SP, and two in Tallman SP.

 

So thats 157 caches in NY State Parks in the lower Hudson Valley three of which have permits, all of which are supposed to have permits by 4/15.

 

I agree with Mark, many cache placers won't even know this. I also agree that it might be time for them to be advised of this, I would think by the cache approvers notifying them by e-mail. April 15th seems a very tough and probably won't be met, given that it coincides with the tax deadline, but it is certainly not too early to start thinking about it.

Edited March 4, 2005 by jonboy

[+Perfect Tommy]

JMBella Posted on Mar 4 2005, 07:50 AM

  I think a lot of that responsibility will have to fall on the local organizations and the cachers that do read the forums.

 

Although I would commend the local organizations for stepping up to the plate, it seems to me that the listing service would be in a better position to alert efficiently and quickly the cache owners who are effected by this development. They have done such notifications in the past, such as when caches have been banned in certain local parks (Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, Teatown Reservation, Greenwich Audubon come to mind).

[Keystone]

It is one thing to do a search on a handful of local parks to see what caches are there, and then notify the cache owners. But for a whole state park system? There's no way to do a search that returns only the caches hidden in New York State Parks. You're talking hundreds of caches. That would make for quite an extensive project and perhaps it would make the most sense to split up the work among many regional groups, rather than asking New York Admin to take a week off from reviewing new cache submissions in order to undertake this effort.

[+nfa]

How about gc.com sending an email to all cache listers (or all cachers) in NY State, mentioning the new policies, and advising them to determine for themselves whether or not they need to get permits for their caches?

 

It would go out to a lot of extra people who it would not apply to, but it's not very hard for people to delete an extra email, and that way gc.com could demonstrate due diligence to NYS if it ever comes up.

 

nfa-jamie

[Allegany OPRHP]

I agree with Mark, many cache placers won't even know this. I also agree that it might be time for them to be advised of this, I would think by the cache approvers notifying them by e-mail. April 15th seems a very tough and probably won't be met, given that it coincides with the tax deadline, but it is certainly not too early to start thinking about it.

BTW: HeadMJ might not have understood the 4/15 deadline that the Allegany Region gave him. We notified all ~10 caches located in our region on Feb 14th that we were giving them 60 days to get their permits in order (I gratefully enjoyed HeadMJ friendly emails and his quick response to us notifying him about the permit process). The April 15th deadline is not a state wide policy and is only a deadline posted by Allegany Region. We figured giving the cache owner 60 days would be enough time for our ~10 caches to get everything in order. We also looked at by mid April in the weather being better for the cache owner to get their permit stickers attached to their cache (if there was any problems with snow).

I do plan on sending soon a second reminder next week about the caches that have not contacted us yet. Hope this helps resolve this concern with the 4/15th date.

[+junglehair]

I actually just emailed NY-Admin to offer NYGO's help with this. I could fairly easily come up with a list of caches located within the New York State Parks using the GIS software I have and a few pocket queries for all the caches in New York.

 

We'd then just need some volunteers to send out a form letter email to each cache owner to let them know about the new regulations.

[+nfa]

I actually just emailed NY-Admin to offer NYGO's help with this. I could fairly easily come up with a list of caches located within the New York State Parks using the GIS software I have and a few pocket queries for all the caches in New York.

 

We'd then just need some volunteers to send out a form letter email to each cache owner to let them know about the new regulations.

I'll help...

[+Perfect Tommy]

That would make for quite an extensive project and perhaps it would make the most sense to split up the work among many regional groups, rather than asking New York Admin to take a week off from reviewing new cache submissions in order to undertake this effort.

 

I'm all for local and regional organizations helping NYADMIN in this task (should make for some interesting turf wars) but, IMHO, the notification should come from the listing service which approved and posted the cache in the first place and will have to archive the listing down the road if it does not meet the new permitting requirements. If it helps, I'll be happy to send a list of waypoints of caches on state parks in Westchester County to NYADMIN if that will get the ball rolling. Quid pro quo though, I'll expect NYADMIN to approve without question my new "Free Martha Now!" cache in Bedford.

[avroair]

Before people started archiving their caches ther were only 137 caches in Harriman.  Today there are still only about 108.  That's about one cache every 500 acres.

I stand corrected Ed, I just did my own count of physical caches actually in Harriman/Bear Mt Park and came up with 105, two in Storm King, one in Fort Montgomery HS, five in Fahnestock, thirteen in the Hudson Highlands, seven in Rockefeller SP, nine in Hook Mt SP, two in High Tor SP, one in Blauvelt SP, and two in Tallman SP.

 

So thats 157 caches in NY State Parks in the lower Hudson Valley three of which have permits, all of which are supposed to have permits by 4/15.

 

I agree with Mark, many cache placers won't even know this. I also agree that it might be time for them to be advised of this, I would think by the cache approvers notifying them by e-mail. April 15th seems a very tough and probably won't be met, given that it coincides with the tax deadline, but it is certainly not too early to start thinking about it.

The main problem at Harriman as I see it is that there are about 5-6 who have placed the majority of caches there. Without going into names and details, i contacted couple to direct them to this thread, but PerfectTommy is right here. GC.com is the listing service and should therefore contact people about the changes. Is it possible to include it in the 'new caches autobot' or for some other way to let all New York cachers know about this process?

 

Otherwise 98% will comply and we will be left with odd singleton caches where people are either no longer active or do not visit forums or the website very often.

 

I see Keystone's point, and it is a mammoth task, but GC.com needs to take the iniative on this, play a leadership role and direct us in the community how we can help out (and shoulder the burden). Otherwise we will have people picking up others caches without consent and approvers archiving caches that won't get picked up.

[Keystone]

junglehair offers a fine solution. I wish I had access to GIS software! Applause for all of junglehair's good work.

 

Folks, there are hundreds of permission policies in place and new ones are adopted around the world on a weekly basis. I don't know that Geocaching.com has the resources to program targeted mailings about each and every one of them. But if you think it's a good idea, start a thread in the Geocaching.com forum and ask if it would be considered as a feature enhancement. Maybe Hydee will say that she's been thinking of doing something along these lines. It can't hurt to ask.

[+junglehair]

Keystone,

 

Do the approvers have access to the GC database to be able to do one large query to return all caches in New York? (currently 3669 caches). I would need to run about 10 pocket queries to be able to capture them all.

[avroair]

Folks, there are hundreds of permission policies in place and new ones are adopted around the world on a weekly basis

 

Point taken. I will crawl back from whence I came. Although this policy does effect a large geocaching population.

 

I will ask about the new caches 'autobot' having specific information and announcement.

[Keystone]

Keystone,

 

Do the approvers have access to the GC database to be able to do one large query to return all caches in New York? (currently 3669 caches). I would need to run about 10 pocket queries to be able to capture them all.

Nope, we have no better querying capabilities than you do. We asked Jeremy for precisely what you're asking for, and heard the same speech that's always given about file size, avoiding customized programming and so forth. We gave up that battle and chose instead to negotiate for having our salaries doubled.

[Keystone]

Folks, there are hundreds of permission policies in place and new ones are adopted around the world on a weekly basis

 

Point taken. I will crawl back from whence I came. Although this policy does effect a large geocaching population.

 

I will ask about the new caches 'autobot' having specific information and announcement.

You're crawling back to England? Don't forget your water wings.

 

Seriously, make the suggestion.

[avroair]

Great News concerning Harriman! I just got off the phone with the Superintendent for the Park and she explained the permit process to me. Which was much like everyone else has said. She then mentioned that each park manager was responsible for his or her park... so i said: "You mean Harriman and Bear Mtn." She responded, no... Toriati, Sebago, Welch, Anthony Wayne etc...

 

* Apparently, due to its size Harriman is divided into five regions. The five cache limit is PER REGION not the whole of the park! Each facility manager is in charge of their region and it is their discretion whether to turn down or accept a geocaching application. That includes the 20 ft rule from trails.

 

* Rangers are told to pick up any cache they find without a permit and contact the owner. They didn't say whether rangers will actively be hunting the caches or whether it becomes more random.

 

* There is no formal policy for exisiting caches other than they need to get permits. They would also like to keep the .25 rule regardless of natural barriers etc. Since the superintendent said that at any time she can call a region manager and know how many caches he\she has in the region and where they are located.

 

Seemed very positive to me.

[+junglehair]

Nope, we have no better querying capabilities than you do. We asked Jeremy for precisely what you're asking for, and heard the same speech that's always given about file size, avoiding customized programming and so forth. We gave up that battle and chose instead to negotiate for having our salaries doubled.

 

Avoiding customized programming? All you'd really need is access to their master database and a some basic SQL skills: Select * from DATABASE where STATE = "NY"

 

Oh well, one can dream. Guess I'll start generating my PQs.

 

Anyone else want to help with this? We could divide up the state and probably get all the PQs to run today. We just need to filter by New York. Doesn't matter if it's .LOC or .GPX format. I will start with the western New York area.

 

I'm looking for PQs for Long Island, Northern New York, Capital Region, Harriman, or Central/Finger Lakes areas. Any takers? If so, post here to say which region you are running, then email the result to me at junglehair(AT)ny-geocaching(DOT)org

 

Thanks!

[+nfa]

Nope, we have no better querying capabilities than you do.  We asked Jeremy for precisely what you're asking for, and heard the same speech that's always given about file size, avoiding customized programming and so forth.  We gave up that battle and chose instead to negotiate for having our salaries doubled.

 

Avoiding customized programming? All you'd really need is access to their master database and a some basic SQL skills: Select * from DATABASE where STATE = "NY"

 

Oh well, one can dream. Guess I'll start generating my PQs.

 

Anyone else want to help with this? We could divide up the state and probably get all the PQs to run today. We just need to filter by New York. Doesn't matter if it's .LOC or .GPX format. I will start with the western New York area.

 

I'm looking for PQs for Long Island, Northern New York, Capital Region, Harriman, or Central/Finger Lakes areas. Any takers? If so, post here to say which region you are running, then email the result to me at junglehair(AT)ny-geocaching(DOT)org

 

Thanks!

I'll do Northern New York...should I worry about overlapping results, or can you edit out the repeats?

 

nfa-jamie

[+junglehair]

I'll do Northern New York...should I worry about overlapping results, or can you edit out the repeats?

 

nfa-jamie

Thanks. The overlapping coordinates are not a problem. In fact, it's better to have them overlap so that we don't miss anything.

[+nfa]

I'm doing a 150 mile search from Lake Clear, a 40 mile search from Syracuse, and a 40 mile search from Albany (which should cover all of NNY). I searched for all types, all continers, active caches, any difficulty/terrain. I'll send you the 3 gpx files tomorrow morning.

 

nfa-jamie

[Keystone]

Did I see those posts? Nope, I was too busy. Someone else will have to fret about the terms of use for pocket queries.

[+junglehair]

Actually, it should include the caches that are not active as well. If there is a cache in a state park that is temporarily disabled, we'll still need to contact the owner regarding the new permit system.

[+junglehair]

Did I see those posts? Nope, I was too busy. Someone else will have to fret about the terms of use for pocket queries.

Oops, didn't think about that aspect of it. But this is for the greater good, right? (hmm, no angelic smiley to use here).

[+nfa]

Actually, it should include the caches that are not active as well. If there is a cache in a state park that is temporarily disabled, we'll still need to contact the owner regarding the new permit system.

fixed...

[+Alan2]

Contacting all the cachers in NYS, if easier for admin than only trying to notify the ones with hides, serve two purposes. It of course notifies the existing cache hiders. But it also will alert those who don't currently have a cache hidden and who do not follow the forums about the policy in case they do want to hide a cache in a NYS .

[+JMBella]

I think we already have Long Island covered. I'd be shocked if more than 3% of the cachers here didn't know about the policy at this point. We're making every effort to get the word out to the few they may or may not know yet.

[+junglehair]

I think we already have Long Island covered. I'd be shocked if more than 3% of the cachers here didn't know about the policy at this point. We're making every effort to get the word out to the few they may or may not know yet.

If you don't mind, I will send you the list that I compile for the parks on Long Island then. You can check it over to see if anyone still needs to be contacted.

[+JMBella]

I think we already have Long Island covered.  I'd be shocked if more than 3% of the cachers here didn't know about the policy at this point.  We're making every effort to get the word out to the few they may or may not know yet.

If you don't mind, I will send you the list that I compile for the parks on Long Island then. You can check it over to see if anyone still needs to be contacted.

No problem.