Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
fersman4

Public Land Caching Policy Database

Recommended Posts

In these forums people are always asking whether caches can be placed on public lands like National Parks and Wilderness areas. The fact is that some areas say it's okay, and some say it is not okay. When someone asks the forums, the answer is always 'Ask the land management organization'. This is obviously necessary, but I don't see why it has to be redundantly asked by everyone who wants to place a cache in an area.

 

If geocaching.com had a centralized database where people could report the answers they received from park administrators for specific parks, it would really be a useful tool for cache placers. Please consider adding such a repository to the site. Thanks.

Edited by fersman4

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was a good idea back in 2002 and I still do! :blink:

 

The volunteer cache reviewers have been talking about a permission policy repository, where we would write down everything we knew about permission policies in the territory each of us covers, and then share it with the rest of the community. You'd be hard-pressed to find a group of people who knew more about permission policies. The only problem is, could everyone please quit hiding caches for a couple of weeks to give us time to develop this resource? :mad:

 

In the meantime there is at least one unofficial policy info. website; however, it is by no means complete.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the linked site has quite a few policies, but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed. But in the absence of anything better, it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, the linked site has quite a few policies, but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed.  But in the absence of anything better, it's there.

We can't be any more complete or accurate than are the submissions we receive.

 

As we were building the site, we were able to find a number of policies on our own, but it has become more difficult for any of us to devote adequate time to that task.

 

We would like nothing better than to have the cache reviewers' policy information so that we could post it on our site. We happily receive all additions and corrections from any source. We strive to have the site reflect them as quickly as possible, though sometimes life interferes.

 

If Groundspeak wanted to take over the management and hosting of the site... well, we are really in it for the money, but we could give it up. However, since they've never acted on our request to have the site appear on the gc.com links page, we rather don't expect Groundspeak to be running the site any time soon.

 

Please send your additions, updates, and corrections to the address on the website or through this ID on the gc.com email facility, at least as long as The Powers That Be permit us to keep this account active.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm awfully surprised that geocachingpolicy.info has not become a major resource for questions about caching policies.

 

Lep, why isn't geocachingpolicy already the "permission policy repository"? It should be. Your posts contain a high degree of negativism toward geocachingpolicy. Is there a reason?

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
I'm awfully surprised that geocachingpolicy.info has not become a major resource for questions about caching policies.

It's probably because the webmaster is hiding behind a sockpuppet account and 3rd party domain registration and has so far refused to identify who he is and what his motive for the site is.

 

I sure don't want to work with someone like that :D

Share this post


Link to post
It's probably because the webmaster is hiding behind a sockpuppet account and 3rd party domain registration and has so far refused to identify who he is and what his motive for the site is.

I didn't know that at all, and I'm surprised to hear it.

 

Um.. well.. there's not much more I can say, except that I find the site to be incredibly underrated. It's too bad more people aren't directed to check out geocachingpolicy, because it's a very good database website.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post
It's probably because the webmaster is hiding behind a sockpuppet account and 3rd party domain registration and has so far refused to identify who he is and what his motive for the site is.

I didn't know that at all, and I'm surprised to hear it.

 

Um.. well.. there's not much more I can say, except that I find the site to be incredibly underrated. It's too bad more people aren't directed to check out geocachingpolicy, because it's a very good database website.

 

Jamie

Given they do what they do, respond to emails about policy, and do it out of their own pocket for now, that's good enough for me.

 

It's something that needs to exist. It does. Good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
...the webmaster is hiding behind a sockpuppet account and 3rd party domain registration and has so far refused to identify who he is and what his motive for the site is.

 

I sure don't want to work with someone like that :ph34r:

We find it intriguing that the only objections we have ever received to our desire to protect our privacy have come from cache reviewers, all of whom have objected from "...behind a sockpuppet account".

 

The "3rd party" domain registration belongs to the company that generously donates its resources to host the site, the name of which is clearly listed on the site's home page. Twice.

 

As for our motives, the site has been in existence for over a year, it does not have, will never have, and has never had any advertising. It drops no cookies, and it neither solicits nor publishes email addresses. We are saddened to hear that our motive, which was and remains to fill a need of the geocaching community that was unmet at the time we began the site, is suspect.

 

Now, we would like to know if you can document your allegation that we have "refused" to identify ourselves, since no one involved with the site is aware that you have ever asked any of us to do so. And if we were to do so, would you then be willing to share the policies you have in your records for inclusion on our site?

Share this post


Link to post
Ummm, no thanks.

That's certainly helpful.

No doubt. The earlier post smacked of elitism. I guess it really is who you know, and not what you know.

 

--RuffRidr

Share this post


Link to post
...

 

I sure don't want to work with someone like that :blink:

...[W]e would like to know if you can document your allegation that we have "refused" to identify ourselves, since no one involved with the site is aware that you have ever asked any of us to do so. And if we were to do so, would you then be willing to share the policies you have in your records for inclusion on our site?

Hemlock,

 

We await the courtesy of a reply.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Keystone pretty well covered it with his response, TTB. :blink:

 

Someday the reviewers will finish putting together their own public site, which will actually be accurate, and be published by a reputable and known source.

 

could everyone please quit hiding caches for a couple of weeks to give us time to develop this resource?  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... Exchanges like that make me worry that Groundspeak holds the copyright to "geocaching." And I'd never have thought that a year ago. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed.

 

The policies that I'm familiar with independently are accurate. Which posted policies are inaccurate?

Share this post


Link to post
but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed.

 

The policies that I'm familiar with independently are accurate. Which posted policies are inaccurate?

If they knew which ones weren't accurate, they could remove them. I think its a general disclaimer as to the possible inaccuracies of the data... :(

Share this post


Link to post
possible inaccuracies

 

I just looked over there and there are more wrong than there are right.

 

When the site in question was first started I was approached to submit some information. I asked a few questions about the people behind the scenes and never did get an answer inspite of my repeating the questions in another e-mail. I'll with hold my support untill I get a response.

Edited by LaPaglia

Share this post


Link to post
I thought Keystone pretty well covered it with his response, TTB.  :)

 

Someday the reviewers will finish putting together their own public site, which will actually be accurate, and be published by a reputable and known source.

 

could everyone please quit hiding caches for a couple of weeks to give us time to develop this resource?  :lol:

When and if the reviewers do create their own site, those of us involved with geocachingpolicy.info will be happy to use the time currently spent on its maintenance to actually do more caching, and close the site down. In the meantime, with support and submissions from the Geocaching community, we can continue to keep the site as current and accurate as possible, even if people continue to hide geocaches.

 

Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Share this post


Link to post
possible inaccuracies

 

I just looked over there and there are more wrong than there are right.

 

When this site the site in question was first started I was approached to submit some information. I asked a few questions about the people behind the scenes and never did get an answer inspite of my repeating the questions in another e-mail. I'll with hold my support untill I get a response.

As we stated in an earlier post, the accuracy of our information can be no better that the accuracy of the information we receive.

 

We have reviewed our email archive again. We can find no record of having received any request for information from you. For that matter, since our site went live in November, 2003, we have had only one request for information from anyone that we know to be in a paid or volunteer position at Groundspeak or geocaching.com. A reply was sent to that request the day after it was received.

 

If we failed to respond, there was a problem with receiving email at the time. That is something over which we have no control. We respond to all email requests we receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Ok, who are you?

 

If you don't answer, then the charge has been proven :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Ok, who are you?

 

If you don't answer, then the charge has been proven :huh:

The classic "put up or shut up". Very nice Sax.

Share this post


Link to post
but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed.
The policies that I'm familiar with independently are accurate. Which posted policies are inaccurate?

 

 

...I just looked over there and there are more wrong than there are right.
For example?

Share this post


Link to post

You can find the motive for GeocachingPolicy.info on the main page.

 

We have created this site to provide a worldwide resource for published policies regarding Geocaching and similar activities. In time we hope that anyone will be able to find the policies for the land manager in which they are interested, or to read existing policies for use as models in the creation of new ones.

 

That has not changed from when this site was an idea that was being developed and they asked for my opinion before going live. Since then I am not aware of anything that would lead me to believe that their desire to be helpful in the area of geocaching policy is anything but genuine.

 

If the approvers have specific knowledge that this motive is not true they are doing geocaching a disservice by not sharing it. At the same time if they have the ability to help this site be a better service and they don't that is their right, but they should not flaunt it and then withhold that help.

 

The undercurrent in this thread from representatives of GC.com is ugly. It makes me wonder what their motive is.

Share this post


Link to post
The undercurrent in this thread from representatives of GC.com is ugly. It makes me wonder what their motive is.

 

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
The undercurrent in this thread from representatives of GC.com is ugly. It makes me wonder what their motive is.

 

Ditto.

Double ditto.

 

 

It seems like a bit of an "Us VS Them" going on here. On one side you have the cachers who are looking for the most updated resource for cache restrictions. i Can understand that. Had I known abut the site I would use it myself. However I can also see it from the reviewer's perspective. Unless you know the person behind the website it is hard to do business with them.

 

Both sides are now at a bit of a standoff. In a perfect world I would like to see

 

1. Policy Editor come out and say " This is who I am"

 

2. The Admin's say "Thank you, here's a link"

 

then we can shake hands, and everyone's friggin happy.

 

So i'm going to bed.

 

Joe Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Ok, who are you?

 

If you don't answer, then the charge has been proven :)

Reply sent.

Share this post


Link to post
Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Ok, who are you?

 

If you don't answer, then the charge has been proven :)

Reply sent.

Why not posted? :D

 

That sure seems to validate what they've said.

Edited by Mopar

Share this post


Link to post
Our second question to you remains unanswered. You allege in your post of March 6 above that we have refused to identify ourselves. Can you document this charge?

Ok, who are you?

 

If you don't answer, then the charge has been proven :)

Reply sent.

Why not posted? :D

 

That sure seems to validate what they've said.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post

It’s clearly a blurry picture.:) Everyone here is hiding behind a userid. I think it is OK to do this as part of the game of geocaching, but not as part of the business. Anyone here can masquerade as someone who has authority (and it happens all the time in virtually every thread). For example, you have no idea for this post whether or not I am a person who has any sort of authority at Groundspring. Where is the list of names (the real names) associated with the userids of those who are in authority. I know that “Jeremy” is Jeremy Irish; I don’t know who “Elias” is; I certainly have no clue who “Policy Editor” is and why s/he would have to put up a completely separate website masquerading as somehow related to geocaching.com. It’s one thing to hide as part of the game; it’s another thing to hide behind a fictitious name as part of the authority structure on which the game is built.

Share this post


Link to post

It was easy enough to look up the user as they also post using another account. They have no authority or relationship with Groundspeak though, and I haven't visited their site so don't have anything to say about that.

 

I see no need to "out" the individual though Sock Puppet accounts are a no-no and since the account seems to be giving an air of authority I'll reserve the right to ban that account in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
For example, you have no idea for this post whether or not I am a person who has any sort of authority at Groundspring.

being that it is called Groundspeak, we have an idea

Edited by Joe Smith

Share this post


Link to post
why s/he would have to put up a completely separate website masquerading as somehow related to geocaching.com
.

 

I don't see where they are masquerading as anything but what they are. A repository for goecaching policy info. The site has a look that is very different from geocaching.com and nowhere do they mention an association with GC.COM

Share this post


Link to post

Why not posted? :lol:

 

Because, as we have said earlier, we maintain a strong desire to publish the site anonymously. We see our efforts on geocachingpolicy.info as something quite separate from our Geocaching activities. We respect the privacy of others. We ask that others respect ours.

 

That sure seems to validate what they've said.

 

Sorry it's coming across that way. Given the amount of still-unsubstantiated accusations that have been made by, and the degree of antagonism we have received from, the cache reviewers posting to this thread, we believe it remains in our best interest to refrain from identifying ourselves in these forums. And it remains our policy to reply to all emails received.

Share this post


Link to post
...I certainly have no clue who “Policy Editor” is and why s/he would have to put up a completely separate website masquerading as somehow related to geocaching.com.

That is not our intent. The site has nothing to do with geocaching.com. At the time of the site's inception we exchanged some emails with gc.com regarding working cooperatively, but nothing developed.

 

We will be reviewing the site content this coming week to modify anything that in our opinion might be creating such an impression. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Share this post


Link to post
...since the account seems to be giving an air of authority I'll reserve the right to ban that account in the future.

We claim no authority. We claim responsibility only for our site and its contents. We do appreciate that we created this account in violation of geocaching.com policy; we thank you for your forbearance, Jeremy.

Share this post


Link to post

The royal "we" is certainly irritating. We are not amused.

Share this post


Link to post

This sounds like a they/them, who's on first base?, discussion. I really think that an official source would be good, that would answer a lot of questions for approvers down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
...I really think that an official source would be good, that would answer a lot of questions for approvers down the road.

In the long run I really won't care if a site is official or not. I'll go with the site that is the most accurate and informative.

 

Regardless of any other debate going on, for now that means exactly one site. There is no other site to even compare too.

Share this post


Link to post
The royal "we" is certainly irritating. We are not amused.

Tbere is also an editorial "we". The fact is that while one person is posting most of these entries, that person is posting in consultation with others. "We" is an acknowledgement of the participation of that group of people, as is our use of phrases such as "those of us involved with geocachingpolicy.info" in earlier posts.

 

This is, though, just another distraction that has nothing to do with the issue of whether geocachingpolicy.info has a place in the Geocaching community. A number of posters here, most if not all of whom appear to be volunteer representatives of geocaching.com, have implied that there is something dishonest in our running the site, charged that we have not responded to emails, or claimed that the information on our site is inaccurate. Yet every time we and others ask for a single piece of documentation or information to back up any one of these charges, the response is to hammer at our insistence on publishing the site anonymously.

 

It's already been stated above by one of the cache reviewers that even if we were to identify ourselves they would still refuse to work with us, though again without saying why. So why should we identify? And why shouldn't those who accuse us be held accountable for their unsubstantiated charges?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have any opinions over your web site. I just don't appreciate these kinds of entity posts. If I were to discuss geocaching policy I do so as Jeremy, not Policy Editor. When I talk about business decisions and represent the rest of Groundspeak I use we.

 

It is just common courtesy to write as yourself and not some unnamed entity, which is rude IMO. I believe my posts should come from me. Or if not rude, just plain weird/silly. We (the community) read your posts like it comes from some faceless void.

 

I can see the hesitation to work with someone when someone acts so outrageously.

Share this post


Link to post

Would I seem too geeky if I mentioned that all these 'we' comments made you sound like some kind of Borg drone? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, the linked site has quite a few policies, but it is by no means a complete list of all policies nor an accurate summary of the policies listed. But in the absence of anything better, it's there.

This prior post of mine has been criticized by those demanding details, and I have been criticized for hiding behind a "sock puppet" account.

 

My name's Dave, I live in Pittsburgh, and my geocaching player account name is "The Leprechauns." We have close to 1,300 cache finds and about 25 hides. My ten year old daughter is much better at this game than I am. She is also way cuter. I use this account to keep my volunteer work separate from my geocaching fun, and so that others will know when I am speaking in my capacity as a Groundspeak volunteer. There, so much for the sock puppet part.

 

When I said that the policy list was "by no means a complete list of all policies" it was based upon my knowledge of my primary review territory, which includes Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. There are more than ten policies from significant land managers -- that is, something like a county park system as opposed to a suburb that has three town parks -- which aren't mentioned in the geocachingpolicy.info database. Examples would include the long-standing ban of geocaches in Summit County, Ohio Metroparks... although this may be changing due to a recent management shuffle... or the terribly restrictive Franklin County, Ohio Metroparks permit system. To me, this means that geocachingpolicy.info is an incomplete list of policies. So, I cautioned readers of this thread to use the database with its limitations in mind.

 

When I said that the policy list was "by no means an accurate summary of the policies listed," I had in mind as an example the West Virginia policy. It applies not only to all WV State Parks and State Forests, but also to WV Wildlife Management areas that have recreational facilities (picnic areas, boat launches, etc.) that are operated and maintained by the State Parks department under a management agreement between the two agencies. A geocacher placing a cache near a picnic area at a WMA could be in for a surprise if they based their permission decision solely upon the information available in the geocachingpolicy.info database. To me, that means it's not an accurate summary of the policy listed. So, I cautioned readers of this thread to use the database with its limitations in mind.

 

This is a sample size of just three states in the U.S. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the sample that there may be other examples where policies are missing from the database or are not described accurately. In making my prior posts I simply wished to bring these considerations to the attention of interested readers.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello KA, RK here.

 

Now that you have been forthright on what's missing the site can activly seek to add the information on it's own. It's a good test I think of their intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
This is a sample size of just three states in the U.S. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the sample that there may be other examples where policies are missing from the database or are not described accurately. In making my prior posts I simply wished to bring these considerations to the attention of interested readers.

 

We know it is not totally accurate. It seems part of the reason for this is because the Groundspeak volunteers refuse to share information they have with Geocachingpolicyinfo. The website has the potential to be a very useful tool for the geocaching community and many of us neutral observers are confused and surprised by Groundspeak's open hostility towards Geocachingpolicyinfo. From what I can tell GPI is not a commercial site. Its not scraping GC.COM (a la Buxley's). Its only mission appears to be providing a valuable service to the user community and the very people who can help are standing in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Sock Puppet accounts are a no-no.

Is this written down somewhere? I can't find it.

 

There are a few creative sock puppet accounts in my region that work hard to enhance the value of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post

From the forum guidelines linked at the top of each page here in the forums:

 

Sock Puppet accounts will not be allowed. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts will be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...