Geocachers Creed Idea

[twjolson & Kay]

I had an idea that I hope very much you can use and implement.

With the starting of rumblings of geocaching bans in various areas, I think it would be a great idea to have a list of the people that voluntarily follow the creed. It would require a little form, and a simple database, but I think it would be worth it. Then when stuff like South Carolina happens we can at least show the creed, show how many of the geocacher communtiy follows such codes of conduct. A great feature would be to have the database sorted by city, state, country and such. So that when someone visits, say the city council, or the park wardens, they can have only local names. As for information, I would collect whole name, address, email, screen name at GC.com, etc, and have them understand that thier info might be used in various geocaching causes, like in South Carolina. Then Council members could contact the people on the list, should they choose.

Just an idea, I think it's implemetable, and could do alot of good if done. Does anyone agree, have any ideas, and anyone willing to help make this a reality?

[+sbell111]

This creed?

[Jeremy]

I understand your intent, but do you really think we need to have a petition that people sign saying "I'm a good guy. Really I am."? Can't we just assume there are some bad apples in every bunch and the rest are good folks? Sorry, but I'm not getting on this PC train.

[+Deliveryguy428]

(changed my mine, need to have a cool head) Edited June 3, 2005 by geoholic28

[twjolson & Kay]

I understand your intent, but do you really think we need to have a petition that people sign saying "I'm a good guy. Really I am."? Can't we just assume there are some bad apples in every bunch and the rest are good folks? Sorry, but I'm not getting on this PC train.

I am currently dealing with the Parks Canada people, they are reviewing the situation of geocaching in the parks; the people in South Carolina are in an even worse situation. I can imagine that this issue is popping up in various places already, and I do believe it will get worse in the future. I don't expect this to be an automatic win in policy making, but if you can take the creed to them, and show them that a good chunk of geocachers voluntarily follow a good code of conduct, it will eliminate the stereotype geocacher that the people can and do have. The whole SC issue is based on misinformation. What I am proposing is something to combat that.

Of course there is always bad eggs, we can't fight that. That is true of anything, and if policy makers ban something because of bad eggs, no park anywhere would get used. If we can show that a good chunk of geocachers are good people, more respectful of nature then the majority of park users, we won't have to worry about parks getting closed to us.

Policy makers don't assume that there are only a few bad apples. The policy makers only got to see the "Bad Apples" and they decided against us. They won't assume there are only a few bad apples unless we show them that the rest of us are good people.

I understand not everyone feels the same as I, but at the same time, if we don't fight, if we don't fight the misinformed opinons of policy makers what's going on in South Carolina is going to happen again.

[+tabulator32]

There is a lot we can do to help local and (inter-)national perception and acceptance of geocaching but I don't think a signed pledge card campaign will do much good to convince anyone of our purpose or intent.

 

I think making local politicians and law enforcement aware of our existance will help in the long run. (Prime example of this being the various stories of cache bomb scares and cops questioning folks late at night and how the story always turns out different when the law enforcement agent is familiar with geocaching.)

 

Every time I talk to someone that isn't familiar with geocaching, they may have questions and eventually warm up to the idea of trying it. Every time I TAKE someone geocaching for the first time, they get hooked.

 

Obviously, if SC's senate had more geocachers, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

People fear the unknown. I'm still for putting the books and DVD's in the libraries and talking with people about it whenever I get the chance.

 

If I'm correct, geocaching has grown into its current state by word-of-mouth (meaning no paid advertising from Groundspeak or geocaching.com to promote membership). Is this correct?

[+Snoogans]

I think it would be a great idea to have a list of the people that voluntarily follow the creed.

I'm with Jeremy on this one.

 

PC stuff makes me want to puke. Welcome to the wussification of America. I will not wear the mark.

 

(admit it, you all so wish I had posted what I wanted to post)

Edited June 3, 2005 by Snoogans

[+Renegade Knight]

That we have the creed is enough.

 

The Creed

Tread Lightly

Leave No Trace

 

All are voluntary programs. 4x4 clubs encourage the use of the latter two. But they don't make a mandatory membership deal out of it. Your heart is in the right place, but it's enough to have state and local groups and listing sites point at the creed as an example of the standards we live by.

[twjolson & Kay]

That we have the creed is enough.

 

The Creed

Tread Lightly

Leave No Trace

 

All are voluntary programs. 4x4 clubs encourage the use of the latter two. But they don't make a mandatory membership deal out of it. Your heart is in the right place, but it's enough to have state and local groups and listing sites point at the creed as an example of the standards we live by.

Of course it wouldn't be a mandatory membership, that would defeat the purpose of it. It would be people pledging support for the creed and what it stands. It would be names that could show policy makers that the general geocacher makes it a point not to harm the areas that we visit.

 

You said it's enough to have state and local groups pointing to the creed. I disagree on two counts. First off, it's not like every single one does this. I myself couldn't recall the URL for the website, and it took quite some time to finally find it, buried in the GC forums. Second, just because someone took the time to place a 3 or 4 page website up doesn't mean much, anyone can do that. But if a nice hunk of people have stood up and listed themselves as supporting the creed, that carries ALOT more weight.

 

I posted to enlist ideas to make this work, and to find people to make it work, not to sit and debate. If you don't like the creed, that's fine. If you think having standards is being a wuss, that's fine too. But this thread wasn't created for that reason.

[+tabulator32]

I think we have enough pledges and creeds and promises to follow without one for geocaching. I'm all for keeping GC legal (I just want to geocache without worrying about a sherriff or stopping me for having a GPSr on me) but I don't need anything that starts to make it a religion or a cult.

 

Thanks for not making me stand in front of the committee for GC authorization and raise my right hand for permission to geocache.

 

 

If you think having standards is being a wuss, that's fine too. But this thread wasn't created for that reason.

 

We already have standards, rules and guidelines. See the geocaching.com website.

 

I think were already set in that category.

Edited June 3, 2005 by tabulator32

[+Prime Suspect]

Having people sign a creed implies that only those people are following the creed.

[+nfa]

If you want to bolster the image of geocaching, host CITO events and events that teach people how to geocache...send a notice to your local paper, and let them cover you cleaning up a park or showing families how to have fun together in the outdoors.

 

A list of support for the Geocacher's Creed with 1000 geocachers' signatures on it would imply that the other 100,000+ geocachers don't buy into the creed.

 

Let our positive actions in communities across the world speak for geocaching, rather than a list that could be dominated by members of the "Squish an Endangered Amphibian while Clearcutting Virgin Forests Coalition" or made up names (for all the lawmakers or land managers know).

 

Just my thoughts on the matter

 

Have a nice weekend everyone, I'm going out caching with my son tonight and tomorrow!!!

 

nfa-jamie

Edited June 3, 2005 by NFA

[+AtoZ]

We dont need creeds we just need people to THINK.

 

cheers

[+StarBrand]

Having people sign a creed implies that only those people are following the creed.

I agree - the problem as I see it is that you may only get 5 - 10% of geocachers to sign into such a database. Most because they disagree with one or 2 of the finer points mentioned in the expanded examples. Then you have park managers and such believing that ONLY 10% follow the creed and 90% are bad guys. In realty we all know that the vast majority of us are trying our best to be legal and good stewards of the land.

[+Kai Team]

We already have standards, rules and guidelines.  See the geocaching.com website. I think were already set in that category.

The Geocachers' Creed is a voluntary code of ethics, not a set of required listing guidelines. It also was designed to appeal to foks who use other listing sites besides gc.com (navicache, terracaching, movingcache, etc). Voluntarily subscribing to standards for ethical conduct speaks louder than (perhaps grudgingly) complying with a set of rules to get your cache listed.

 

That said, Prime Suspect, NFA and Starbrand make a good point about implying that only those who have signed the Creed will follow the Creed. Assuming for the sake of this discussion that most cachers would sign it if asked, there is the practical matter of getting the word out. Most geocachers don't participate in forums. Jeremy is clear that he doesn't support the idea (i.e. don't expect gc.com to promote it). Unless people who haven't yet weighed in are willing to help spread the word, we do risk making it look like most geocachers don't subscribe to guidelines about being safe, legal and ethical.

 

If there are cachers who support twjolson & Kay's idea and are willing to help out, they need to chime in... otherwise, this isn't likely to go anywhere.

[+Kai Team]

We dont need creeds we just need people to THINK.

 

cheers

Ain't it the truth!

 

Of course, some people behave thoughtlessly in the literal sense of the word, and having a widely known creed prompts them to think (sort of like those defensive driving courses)!

 

In that context, it can't hurt for people to link to (from caches and profiles, as well as websites) and distribute the Creed brochures or business cards. If you're interested, everything you need is available for free on the Geocachers' Creed resources page.

[+Criminal]

Wow, that’s the first time I heard of or read that load of crap.

 

#1 “Not endanger myself or others” I guess I owe a few of my fellow hiker/geocachers an apology. We better all stick to the 1/1’s just to be safe. ” Don't attempt anything beyond your abilities.” Yeah, there’s a lot of adventure in that…

 

#2 Sorry, I make no promises for this one.

 

#3 I will not ”Check if public land has a geocaching policy…” If I don’t know about it or it isn’t posted, it doesn’t exist. I’m not going to ask permission to do something I know not to be illegal or against rules.

 

The rest are OK I guess.

 

See the problem? Not everyone is going to have the same philosophy on these issues.

[+Tharagleb]

What about licensing and regulating geocachers?, then we would be legit. Naw, I prefer "Don't ask, don't tell."

 

/attempt at humor

[+sbell111]

Wow, that’s the first time I heard of or read that load ...

Where were you when I needed you a few months ago?

[+Criminal]

Wow, that’s the first time I heard of or read that load ...

Where were you when I needed you a few months ago?

I'm always here for you! You might have to give me a nudge evey once and a while though.

 

EDIT: BTW, didn't your avatar used to be more gold colored?

Edited June 3, 2005 by Criminal

[+sbell111]

EDIT: BTW, didn't your avatar used to be more gold colored?

Nope. No demotion here.

[CoyoteRed]

We dont need creeds we just need people to THINK.

Yeah, well, you can see the absence of that in this very thread, so I guess that goes out the window.

 

...that and reading comprehension.

[+sbell111]

I don't see any evidence of non-thinkers, just non-agree-ers. Who are you attempting to insult?

[+sbell111]

Thinking about the original idea, one of the biggest problems I have with it is that people will be likely to sign the pledge whether they intend to follow it or not. It reminds me of the 'abstinence pledges' that kids are signing. Studies have shown that these kids have a higher likelihood of having STDs. Just because people sign something that says that they will be good boys and girls doesn't mean that they will be.

[+Nyarlotep]

hmmm, how to speak my piece w/o sounding like a jerk...

 

It's nice that the site has some suggestions for the deportment of Geocachers. The guidelines are good, and probably help distance the site from actionability if some legal thing ever pops up. "We told them not to do such-and-such."

 

But, like the Bible, it's a good set of guidelines that people should try to make fit their way of caching and not take literally.

 

This reminds me of Catch-22, when everyone had to sign loyalty oaths over and over to prove how loyal they are. Not everyone is going to agree to and/or follow all the rules all the time, and what happens when someone who signed their Creed Pledge thing accidentally violates one or more part of it? Do they get kicked off the list? Shunned by the caching community? Or...nothing happens at all because there's no way to enforce it.

 

While the idea of the list is OK, the actuality is that casual cachers like me don't impact much of anything, and no one I know who caches would sign anything like that even if we do follow all the rules all the time. It seems futile to pursue it any further than this. People will think what they want about us no matter what we sign.

 

Just MHO.

[+webscouter.]

EDIT:  BTW, didn't your avatar used to be more gold colored?

Nope. No demotion here.

Actually going from gold to silver is a promotion.

 

Gold is Major,

Silver is Lt Colonel.

[+sbell111]

Actually going from gold to silver is a promotion.

 

Gold is Major,

Silver is Lt Colonel.

You have no idea how much I am aware of that.

 

What I meant is that my avatar has always been silver (LTC), it has never been demoted to gold (MAJ). It also has not sprouted wings due to a promotion.

Edited June 3, 2005 by sbell111