Jump to content

Gc.com Vs. Geocachingpolicy.info


Recommended Posts

I remember when there were no “dummies” books, no extra sites to tell me how to hide or find a cache, no superior cachers, and no local organizations. Funny, I made it through just fine. (Well, except for when a certain local approver was almost arrested looking for one of my better caches, but that was his fault for the method he was using, not due to the great cache he was looking for.)

 

There’s too much hand wringing and too much laziness. All the information is there, find it. To date I have yet to read the actual guidelines or rules about hiding a cache.

I agree with you on that second point. I think most people don't really read those guidelines/EULA and just click yes.

 

It would be interesting to put something in the agreement you have to sign onto become a member here that says something like.

 

"You just send a seperate e-mail to madeupaccount at geocaching.com"

 

You know, just something to see how many people actually pick up on it so you can get a gauge on how many people actually read the agreement.

Link to post

I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

 

I'd also like to know if the next time a state group brings new policy to Groundspeak, would GC.com be willing to suggest that the state groups please get in touch with geocachingpolicy.info so that the rest of us are better informed (since the local groups are so up-to-date that GC.com is getting the majority of their information from them).

 

In other words, how far is GC.com willing to go to help the community? How far are our fellow geocachers (who also review for GC.com) willing to go to help the rest of us out? Or are you just going to sit on useful data as you get it because it suits you? I haven't brainstormed enough to think of every way Groundspeak or our fellow geocachers can better this situation, but I do know that ignoring, isolating, and even castigating geocachingpolicy.info for relatively benign issues isn't benefitting anyone.

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to post
I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

Yes, I've stopped beating my wife.

Link to post
I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

 

I'd also like to know if the next time a state group brings new policy to Groundspeak, would GC.com be willing to suggest that the state groups please get in touch with geocachingpolicy.info so that the rest of us are better informed (since the local groups are so up-to-date that GC.com is getting the majority of their information from them).

 

In other words, how far is GC.com willing to go to help the community? How far are our fellow geocachers (who also review for GC.com) willing to go to help the rest of us out? Or are you just going to sit on useful data as you get it because it suits you? I haven't brainstormed enough to think of every way Groundspeak or our fellow geocachers can better this situation, but I do know that ignoring, isolating, and even castigating geocachingpolicy.info for relatively benign issues isn't benefitting anyone.

But running off at the mouth is????

Link to post
I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

 

I'd also like to know if the next time a state group brings new policy to Groundspeak, would GC.com be willing to suggest that the state groups please get in touch with geocachingpolicy.info so that the rest of us are better informed (since the local groups are so up-to-date that GC.com is getting the majority of their information from them).

 

In other words, how far is GC.com willing to go to help the community?  How far are our fellow geocachers (who also review for GC.com) willing to go to help the rest of us out?  Or are you just going to sit on useful data as you get it because it suits you?  I haven't brainstormed enough to think of every way Groundspeak or our fellow geocachers can better this situation, but I do know that ignoring, isolating, and even castigating geocachingpolicy.info for relatively benign issues isn't benefitting anyone.

But running off at the mouth is????

The question and larger point is valid even if it doesn't meet your brevity requirements. Did you have a counter point? or was that it? KA's snappy comeback wasn't any better.

 

You don't have to like an opinion but you should be civil especially as a reviewer and former mod who quoted "respect" more than anyone else I know in the forums.

Link to post
KA's snappy comeback wasn't any better.

Sorry, but such a loaded, insulting question deserved nothing better. The four to six hours I spend each day on my volunteer work speak for themselves. Hydee's posts make it clear that keeping an anonymous outside website informed about land manager policies is not part of that volunteer obligation. Working with individual geocachers and regional organizations is.

 

I am perfectly happy to respond in like manner to civil, respectful posts, whether in this topic or others.

Link to post
I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

 

I'd also like to know if the next time a state group brings new policy to Groundspeak, would GC.com be willing to suggest that the state groups please get in touch with geocachingpolicy.info so that the rest of us are better informed (since the local groups are so up-to-date that GC.com is getting the majority of their information from them).

 

In other words, how far is GC.com willing to go to help the community?  How far are our fellow geocachers (who also review for GC.com) willing to go to help the rest of us out?  Or are you just going to sit on useful data as you get it because it suits you?  I haven't brainstormed enough to think of every way Groundspeak or our fellow geocachers can better this situation, but I do know that ignoring, isolating, and even castigating geocachingpolicy.info for relatively benign issues isn't benefitting anyone.

But running off at the mouth is????

The question and larger point is valid even if it doesn't meet your brevity requirements. Did you have a counter point? or was that it? KA's snappy comeback wasn't any better.

 

You don't have to like an opinion but you should be civil especially as a reviewer and former mod who quoted "respect" more than anyone else I know in the forums.

Ya know what? you are correct. That was not at all respectful. I apologize

Link to post
I'd still like to hear from a reviewer who doesn't feel it's worth their time to help keep the rest of us informed outside of their volunteer work with Groundspeak.

 

I'd also like to know if the next time a state group brings new policy to Groundspeak, would GC.com be willing to suggest that the state groups please get in touch with geocachingpolicy.info so that the rest of us are better informed (since the local groups are so up-to-date that GC.com is getting the majority of their information from them).

 

In other words, how far is GC.com willing to go to help the community? How far are our fellow geocachers (who also review for GC.com) willing to go to help the rest of us out? Or are you just going to sit on useful data as you get it because it suits you? I haven't brainstormed enough to think of every way Groundspeak or our fellow geocachers can better this situation, but I do know that ignoring, isolating, and even castigating geocachingpolicy.info for relatively benign issues isn't benefitting anyone.

And how just how much volunteer time do you decree that they be required to give to another website?

 

Better yet, why don't YOU volunteer to help geocachingpolicy.com build and maintain their policy list? If "helping the community" is so near and dear to your heart, why defer your responsibility to someone else?

 

Some people are always willing... to spend other peoples money. Or time. I'm sure Lep won't mind telling his daughter they can't go caching today because he has been forced to give MORE of his free time.

 

:D

Link to post

See we are of a difference of opinion of what is helpful. I am just not convinced that putting my efforts into trying to update a 3rd party site on policies is the best way to communicate that information.

 

I will continue to encourage the reviewers to work with local organizations. When a land manger contacts me in many cases I will put them in touch with their local organization, not to mention that some local organizations are the main contact for land managers. I also encourage new cachers looking for information to go to local organizations sites. I am working on a project to give those local organizations more visibility and a better way to work together.

 

For now my time will continue to be dedicated to helping the local organizations be the carriers of local information.

Link to post
See we are of a difference of opinion of what is helpful. I am just not convinced that putting my efforts into trying to update a 3rd party site on policies is the best way to communicate that information. ...

If you saw your efforts go into a black hole I could understand this. I support Handicaching.com. it's not hard. The occasional question comes up and I provide a link. If I see someone who might be willing to help take the site to the next level I'll ask them if they would be interested.

 

Helping and promoting are easy. Actually doing the work directly takes a lot of time. CCing GPI (Geocahingpoliyinfo takes a lot of typing) on an email to a local org as an FYI is easy. Using GPI to contact those local orgs on policy issues is easier still. In the end it's a choice that Grounspeak has made. Local orgs are all third parties.

 

If GPI was uncooperative, didn't work as planned, etc. then that would be reason enough to pull working with them. Things don't look like they will ever get the chance. I wonder if they get the same reaction from other sites?

Link to post

Just want to echo that local groups are usually the best at up-to-date information for local lands and policies. The idea is ok for nationwide but unmanageable and very difficult to keep current without much time and effort.

Link to post
Better yet, why don't YOU volunteer to help geocachingpolicy.com build and maintain their policy list? If "helping the community" is so near and dear to your heart, why defer your responsibility to someone else?

 

Some people are always willing... to spend other peoples money. Or time. I'm sure Lep won't mind telling his daughter they can't go caching today because he has been forced to give MORE of his free time.

I don't have the tools or information to help geocachingpolicy.info. As they have readily pointed out and is fairly obvious, land managers contact this website with policy information, not me. They have to have this information available for their volunteer work, not me. The responsibility is only behooved on those who have the information and choose not to share it with the rest of us.

 

As RK pointed out, it doesn't take much time to add an extra e-mail address. In fact, if you are using any modern e-mail program, it would take less time than the total time spent arguing against it here.

 

If KA can't go geocaching with his daughter, it is more realistically because he had to wade through 12 geocaches placed in inappropriate places in Ohio that may have been avoided if current information was available to the placer than a 5 minute e-mail updating a single land manager policy with geocachingpolicy.info.

 

BTW, KA, you again stand behind Hydee's posts (which do not address any harm in your keeping another site updated). Your answer to "Why not help us all out by giving us information" is "I help in other ways and Hydee doesn't make me". Congratulations. You drive a mile and miss your goal by parking 2 feet short.

Link to post

I'll add another solution.

 

Since a system is not established here at GC.com for policy dissemination (and when it is as alluded to earlier...will you *then* spend your less-than-free time updating that? So the only difference is what website the information resides?), here is a solution that would at least keep us up-to-date as well as possible.

 

Pin a topic in the regional forums that houses policy links and information for the entire region. This worked to get news of the NPS ban out in the general forum. You don't have to update it immediately, but when you are looking to spend an hour in the forums, it would be a small aside for you to add/remove/update any policy information in the thread.

Link to post

Groundspeak and the employees of Groundspeak have responded and there is nothing to add about the GeocachingPolicyInfo.com web site. As for the discussion relating to policy we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

Closing the thread.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...