Public Land Caching Policy Database

[+Mopar]

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.

Look at the top of every forum page, for starters. Where it says "Read the Forum Guidelines"

 

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.

 

Dagnabbit! KA beat me to it!

Edited March 15, 2005 by Mopar

[+klossner]

"Read the Forum Guidelines"

Ah. I thought we were talking about geocaching.com memberships. So the sock puppet restriction applies only to forum accounts?

[+Renegade Knight]

"Read the Forum Guidelines"

Ah. I thought we were talking about geocaching.com memberships. So the sock puppet restriction applies only to forum accounts?

Sock puppets exist to hide someone's identiy. Normally so when they do something they would not normally do such as flame other posters their "Real" account doesn't get in trouble.

 

Then there are the accounts that do some purpose but aren't really real in the same sence as a geocacachers account.

 

Today's Cacher, Jeep4x4, & Policy Editor come to mind. However there are others that do things along a similar vein. These are not sock puppets in that who they represent is very clear and has not been hidden.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

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.

This is typical of gc.com. Someone else does something that they feel in some small way may take away from their little claim of being "The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site" and they have to do something to make them go away. But they follow up by saying they are planning on offering the same service. We have seen it with Buxley's maps (yes there are some other issues involved there). It has happened with the service (sorry I can't remember the name) that provided email notifications of when new caches where placed in your area, what has it been like a year waiting for gc.com to provide that service.

 

Now we see that someone is willing to step up and provide one place to reference policies and gc.com seems to have some kind of problem with that. But oh don't worry gc.com is planning to provide that service in the future as well. Don't hold your breath waiting on that one either. Instead of pointing out the problems with geocachingpolicy.info why don't you all help out the community and share the information you have?

 

As far as who those people are, what does it matter? It should be pretty obvious why they don't want their identities know. As vindictive as some can be on this site, why would they want to have to deal with all of that while they are just trying to provide a useful service to the community. We have seen how others who do something that many find useful but runs afoul of TPTB and have not been annointed with the holy water from the Emerald City are treated. So for better or worse we have seen that following the party line is more important than providing information that would be useful to the community and make the sport better for everyone.

[MapheadMike]

Add me to the list of neutral readers who is surprised this has turned into an us vs. them situation.

 

...There are more than ten policies from significant land managers ... which aren't mentioned in the geocachingpolicy.info database...

 

...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.

 

I appreciate that KA wanted to make us aware that there are inaccuracies on the geocachingpolicy.info site. I believe there would be a greater value in making us aware the land manager policies that aren't otherwise published, or are published wrong. I hope KA will come around to that way of thinking and offer the "more than (10 originally minus 3 in the prior post) seven" land manager policies that are still unknown to the rest of us.

 

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

The classic "put up or shut up"...

 

That goes double for others who added fuel to the us vs. them flames.

[Keystone]

The 20+ land manager policies that I keep track of when reviewing caches are all published at one place or another. It is not like I'm keeping them secret. The geocachers in Akron are painfully aware of the Summit County parks ban. The Columbus geocachers are actively discussing the restrictive Franklin County policy. My clarification of the West Virginia policy was obtained firsthand through an inquiry I made to the state agency at the request of concerned West Virginia geocachers. And so on and so forth. To label me as the only person capable of taking the additional step of firing off e-mails to some unidentified policy group site is to give me far too much credit. I focus my energies on working with the local cachers and their organizations who live with these policies. Nowhere in my volunteer job description is there a bullet point about remembering to update the unknown royal We people. If Hydee tells me to start doing that, I'll add it to the list of duties.

[+briansnat]

Nowhere in my volunteer job description is there a bullet point about remembering to update the unknown royal We people. If Hydee tells me to start doing that, I'll add it to the list of duties.

 

Give me a break. It probably won't take much longer than it took you to go through their site and pick out their errors (was that in your job description?). I still don't understand this us vs. them attitude and the hostility on, not only your part, but all the Gspeak folk who've weighed on on this. Instead of addressing it, you wave the sock puppet red herring.

 

It seems awfully petty of you guys. Sheesh, you guys got me on the same page as Grizzly John for heaven's sake!

[Keystone]

I would have preferred to just have left this thread alone, as I haven't the time for it. But there was continuing criticism for not being responsive. See page one. So I responded with some easy examples. I'm done now.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

Sheesh, you guys got me on the same page as Grizzly John for heaven's sake!

Man I hate it when that happens.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I focus my energies on working with the local cachers and their organizations who live with these policies....

Any national site will have the same issue. Local cachers, local organizations, and local approvers who know the policys to help the national keep things updated.

 

The model is similar to GC.com. They could pay someone to hit the "approve" button all day long after they check out the cache with the Central GC.com info base. They don't. Instead they enlist the help of people who are in a better position to know local issues to assist with the approval process. GC.com lists caches so their model works for that purpose, but it still relies on the equivilent of local help or at least local knowledge..

 

An approver based site would have an advantage in that it has WILLING help of the approvers who do maintain a knowledge of local regs. Since for the most part this site lacks that help it has to work harder to do the job they do. Interestingly enough they have said that should the approver site come online they would go offline and get back to caching. A couple of questions, though which approvers? This sites, other sites, or both? Will it be one big approver family running it? That would be best if you are going to have an approver site, but is that the direction it's going? Who is behind the site? Is there a beta to look at?

 

KA this isn't so much directed at you, as a result of the thoughts that your post brought about.

[+RPW]

Speaking as a simple geocacher I echo the sentiments of several others: Just give us something that works. Personally I do not care if geocaching.com runs a caching policy database or geocachingpolicy runs one or whomever. This bickering is just getting in the way of providing what I suspect 99% of geocachers want -- a place to look up public land policies.

[Policy Editor]

The errors and omissions that KA pointed out have been added to the site, with one exception (West Virginia) that requires additional research. Thanks, KA, for providing the additional information. Perhaps as a result of this example, people will make more submissions to the site, which will only benefit the entire Geocaching community.

 

GeocachingPolicy.info will disappear as soon as any entity is willing and able to provide this information in a more comprehensive and accurate manner. In effect, that has happened already on the site's United Kingdom page. The Geocaching Association of Great Britain's GLAD database reports on the policies and issues there much more effectively than can a US-based website. The UK page remains on GeocachingPolicy.info primarily to link interested parties to the GAGB site and page, but no further maintenance is contemplated for the GeocachingPolicy.info UK page. If anyone or any entity wishes GeocachingPolicy.info would simply go away, it can be made to happen, though perhaps not easily.

 

Now it's time to go Geocaching. No personal pronouns required.

[+fersman4]

Well, it sucked reading through this whole argument and the only useful post was the third one.

 

Anyway, perhaps you can school me a little. According to geocachingpolicy.info, BLM lands says geocaching is okay in general, but that individual lands have the capability to make some restrictions. But which lands are governed by the BLM? Who governs National Forests and Wilderness areas?

 

Trying to figure out who manages what lands is very difficult and confusing. Little help?

Edited March 19, 2005 by fersman4

[+briansnat]

Who governs National Forests and Wilderness areas?

 

The US Forest Service oversees national forests.