Who placed the very first cache?
Enter Your Name Here
patrick warnshuis
first geocache near Estacada, OR. When the SA was removed, he published (I
believe on the sci-geo-satellite-nav usenet the coordinates of the cache.
His original cache has suffered the ravages of time and nature but a
commerative cache has been set at the same site and is still active.
. . . .patrick
"Enter Your Name Here" <y...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:X2Ea9.33307$_91....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Does anybody know?
>
Jon Barry
for the honor. Look around old posting with google and you can find the
posting dated just after SA was turned off.
Jon
Scout
posted by Dave Ulmer.
Remarkably, this short message contains the essence of what the game remains
today (that is, if you ignore the fact that the first cache was listed on a
free, non-commercial newsgroup, not a pay-to-play commercial Web site ;-)
From: Dave (news2you...@hotmail.com.invalid)
Subject: GPS Stash Hunt... Stash #1 is there!
Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav
Date: 2000/05/03
Well, I did it, created the first stash hunt stash and here are
the coordinates:
N 45 17.460
W122 24.800
Lots of goodies for the finders. Look for a black plastic bucket
buried most of the way in the ground. Take some stuff, leave
some stuff! Record it all in the log book. Have Fun!
Stash contians: Delorme Topo USA software, videos, books, food,
money, and a slingshot!
Eric O'Connor
>Remarkably, this short message contains the essence of what the game remains
>today (that is, if you ignore the fact that the first cache was listed on a
>free, non-commercial newsgroup, not a pay-to-play commercial Web site ;-)
*chuckle* I can always count on you for a laugh.
I've given up blaming Jeremy. People in the caching community had a choice but
for whatever reason decided to be complacent.
I asked my local cachers to list their caches at www.navicache.com for backup
purposes if nothing else, yet nobody bothered. There's a 40:1 ratio between the
sites around here.
Navicache needs something along the line of the killer app. Something that makes
people scramble to list/seek caches there.
Linux is much more powerful than Windows, yet here I sit using the Millennium
Edition. I guess I'm not one to talk...
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Eric O'Connor" <er...@waypoints.org> wrote in message
> news:8a6nmukj6e1gghdap...@4ax.com...
> > "Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I've given up blaming Jeremy. People in the caching community had a choice but
> > for whatever reason decided to be complacent.
>
> Blame is too strong a word. People are more than welcome to use the
> commercial, for-profit site if they want. I just think it's
> worthwhile to point out that the game wasn't always commercial as it
> is today. And to point out that it *is* commercial today, which a
> lot of folk don't seem to realize.
>
The game's not a game, it's a hobby, and it was always commercial. you
had to buy a gps, to participate, after all.
Richard Amirault
And I *already* owned a GPS before I found my first cache ;-)
--
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"
"Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uptw4d...@yahoo.com...
(snip)
Richard Amirault
Massachusetts we have a geocacher that has found (at this date) 342 caches
... ALL WITHOUT A GPS!! How? He's an expert map and compass user. It *can*
be done folks! (I wouldn't want to try it)
--
Richard Amirault N1JDU Boston,
MA, USA
www.erols.com/ramirault "Go Fly A Kite"
"Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uptw4d...@yahoo.com...
(snip)
Marty Fouts
"Richard Amirault" <rami...@erols.com> writes:
> Hobbys can't be games?? or games can't be hobbies??
yes. but (basic) geocaching doesn't have the competive connotation of
'winning' that one usually associates with games.
one can base games around basic geocaching, but, as practiced, it's
not a game, and it's not a sport.
Marty Fouts
"Richard Amirault" <rami...@erols.com> writes:
> Oh, I forgot ... you actually don't need a GPS to find
> geocaches. Here in Massachusetts we have a geocacher that has found
> (at this date) 342 caches ... ALL WITHOUT A GPS!! How? He's an
> expert map and compass user. It *can* be done folks! (I wouldn't
> want to try it)
Oh, i know. I've found a couple without my GPS, myself.
Nicola Straub
Jon Barry wrote:
> yes, but but the person who first hid a cache prefers not to be remembered
> for the honor. Look around old posting with google and you can find the
Arggh. Is that so? I'm often asked by journalists
and planned to put it in a kind of press-FAQ on
our website.
Do you think he would mind? Did he ever post something
like 'please don't mention my name'?
Thanks for info
Nicola
Eric O'Connor
[ Dave Ulmer - this is your life! ]
Scout wrote:
>His criticisms focused on the potential environmental damage geocaching can lead
>to, although he has strong opinions on many topics, so his concerns were not
>limited to that one thing.
His being concerned about the environmental impact is noble.
It was his tinfoil-hat approach to expressing these concerns that I find most
amusing. (He used to read this group so... "Hi Dave")
I'm not thrilled with some of the attitudes in the geocaching community myself.
Look at how common it is for cache contents to degrade. This seems to be a
universal complaint despite the constant pleads for a fair swap.
The placement of some caches will cause harm to the environment.
Not many of us are botanist with an eye for preserving those plants that are
teetering near the endangered list. Most of us just try not to stomp all over
whatever plants happen to be in the area.
Park services want us to seek approval, but a lot of cachers (myself included)
don't bother to ask for this permission. In my case it's because I'm pretty sure
they'll mentally default to "No!" after hearing only the words "May I?".
The park people have a responsibility to open themselves up to dialog about
these issues, currently people are dissuaded from making the effort.
Evad Remlu
bored with it. I am still waiting for the day when others get bored too and
we can all move on to better uses for GPS's.
I am still collecting interesting tracks through backwoods country and
Wondert waypoints of interesting points of interest. Some day I hope we will
be able to search for adventures and not just boxes of junk...
Dave...
B.A.S
Evad Remlu wrote:
> Yep, I still visit geocaching every once in a while even though I am totally
> bored with it. I am still waiting for the day when others get bored too and
> we can all move on to better uses for GPS's.
>
> I am still collecting interesting tracks through backwoods country and
> Wondert waypoints of interesting points of interest. Some day I hope we will
> be able to search for adventures and not just boxes of junk...
>
> Dave...
>
Hey, great to hear from you Dave!
When you say adventures, do you have something in mind beyond what's
being done today in most multi-stage and virtual caches?
I must say, the trinket boxes are the least interesting part of
geocaching for me after a year or so of playing at it. Though my kids
still enjoy the 'physical find' and exchange.
The primary reason I still enjoy it is because it gets me out to places
I otherwise wouldn't have known about. I am more selective about which
caches I seek out these says, usually only going for the ones which
appear to be in an interesting area, and particularly those with a
historical bent. For example, "The Lynching of Eugene Daniel" cache near
me, where you get a bit of a history lesson while seeking out locations
related to a lynching 80 years ago:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14321
Cheers,
B.A.S.
Randall J. Berry
website which holds as much demand as Geocaching.com does? Have any of you
considered the costs of the bandwidth alone not to mention the additional
equipment costs, and the man/woman hours to maintain it? Don't you think
the folks at Groundspeak deserve to make a few bucks?? Besides who said it
was mandatory to give them anything at all? Talking about ratios I'll be
willing to bet you the ratio of freeloaders to subscribers on geocaching.com
are about 100 to 1 if not more!
For the record.. I have maintained such a site in the past. And the
reason that it is part of the past is because of my dedication for it to
remain free.. As you could imagine it's own popularity and un-compensated
expenses forced if off the web.. So no, I don't blame the folks a
Groundspeak for trying to re-coup some of the expenses they have laid out
for nothing over the past few years.. I should have done the same thing
myself.. And yes, I am a Charter Member of Geocaching.com..
--
Randall J. Berry
dav...@mdgps.net
Maryland Geocaching Society
Maryland's Premiere Geocaching Organization
Recognized by the State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Website: http://www.mdgps.net
Forums: http://forums.mdgps.net
This message has been scanned and found to be virus free.
All mail is scanned by Norton Anti-Virus prior to sending.
"Eric O'Connor" <er...@waypoints.org> wrote in message
news:8a6nmukj6e1gghdap...@4ax.com...
Randall J. Berry
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:al6elg$1ne2q5$1...@ID-127818.news.dfncis.de...
> "Randall J. Berry" <ad...@mdgps.net> wrote in message
> news:und8ab4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > So no, I don't blame the folks a
> > Groundspeak for trying to re-coup
> > some of the expenses they have laid out
> > for nothing over the past few years.
>
> Nor do I. You have totally misunderstood the issues.
>
> ---
> Scout
>
It just seems to me that there is allot of pissin' bitchin' and moanin'
on this NG about Geocaching.com being 'commercialized, 'pay-to-play'
'censored' just to name a few slugs used against it. Out of 4 posts I read
today that just so happened to have interesting topics. To my surprise all
four had something negative threaded into them about Geocaching.com, or
Jeremy, or anything affiliated with him and/or the website contained in
them. Yet the topics had nothing to do with the subject of let's slam Jeremy
,the website, or indirect remarks toward it. This is the very reason that I
don't participate in this NG as much as I would like to. Maybe those
Geocaching.com haters should start thier own NG and name it
alt.rec.navicache or something at least then this NG might be worth
participating in.
Not to mention the attitudes of some of the cachers in here. As plainly
stated in this very thread about hiding caches without permission, because
the cacher couldn't be bothered to ask, or in several other threads about
using Ammo cans because they feel like it. This very attitude is what is
going to be the end-all to the sport.
Just to fill you in. I have spent most of this year and last year (and
it's not over yet) along with members of the MGS, filling in holes and
trying to meet a resolve through understanding, and organization with park
property managers at all levels who had every intention of making the sport
illegal in the state of Maryland and on Maryland Park properties. Shortly
there after, if the state authorities banned it, how long do you think it
would take for municipal parks, and other park authorities to begin adopting
the rules of the Maryland Park Service? Your answer, Not too long. In fact
that very issue had been discussed with other municipal park officials as
well.
How did this come about? Because of Ammo cans lying around is peculiar
places. People felt threatened and the authorities responsible for the
public safety had no choice but to react. And since nobody asked
'permission' to hide the cache, none of the officials knew what it was. So,
it led to a federal ordeal involving the diffusion of the unidentified
package. In other words BOOM! they blew it up. (Maryland is not the only
state where this has happened.) All this to find out it was a harmless
package of trinkets, a notebook and pen. Thousands of dollars of YOUR tax
dollars wasted because someone hid an Ammo Can, without asking permission,
and without consideration to the passing public which caused alarm and
played a role in nearly banning the sport in Maryland. As I understand this
issue is now threatening New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Washington DC being as a large majority of it is Federal property has nearly
banned ALL physical caches. How many more states do you want to add to the
list?? All because people can't read the guidelines posted on Geocaching.com
that say that you should ask permission first. And recently adds the
recommendation not to use Ammo Cans.. But then again many who can read think
that those recommendations were written for someone else.
I guess my point is if this attitude goes on too long the topic of one
post will surely be "Who placed the last cache?"
Police yourself people.. That's all I ask, and stop bashing the people
that are trying to support the sport that we all enjoy.
Eric O'Connor
"Randall J. Berry" doesn't:
>> blame the folks at Groundspeak
"Scout" claims Randall has:
>totally misunderstood the issues.
It's complicated for people to get at first, but as far as the money is
concerned... $30 a year was a %200 drop in what I was donating on my own...
I was at $40 before memberships started and would have given over $100 by
now....
I am no longer a "member" even though I've paid a couple years worth of dues at
this point. If it's a true business than he needs to get rid of the volunteers
and lose the donate buttons. He also needs to be more aggressive with getting
park approvals to be a standard approach.
If this isn't a business then he needs to let others contribute their bandwidth
and programming skills.
Jeremy Irish appears to be more roadblock than anything.
He's upset some very capable people during a time that they could have been a
real asset to the hobby. I know he used to lurk here so feel free to take that
personally Jeremy. :-)
I'd love it if Scout, blscearce, Tresokies, Fouts, Kablooey, Buxley, ClayJar, or
almost anyone else had registered the geocaching.com domain from the onset. Even
if the hobby was smaller I think we'd all be much better off.
Randall J. Berry
> It's complicated for people to get at first, but as far as the money is
> concerned... $30 a year was a %200 drop in what I was donating on my
own...
>
> I was at $40 before memberships started and would have given over $100 by
> now....
Wow! I've spent over $500 in the past 6 months alone promoting this
hobby because it's something I enjoy.. You won't hear me crying about it,
and I've never asked for a penny in return.. Any monies that have
voluntarily came in are still sitting in the bank waiting for something the
members feel it should be spent on.. No sympathy there. If you don't want to
spend it DON'T!
> He also needs to be more aggressive with getting park approvals to be a
standard approach.
OK, now how do you propose this is done? How do you 'prove' the
'aproval'? this is a dilemma we have been trying to resolve for a while now.
If you have a logical answer to this then I'd like to hear it and I am sure
that I am not alone either.. Honesty, park officials don't have the staff to
answer each and every persons requests it seems it takes forever to get
approval. Half the people don't even care to ask for it! (Much like the
attitude mentioned earlier.) One thing you seem to forget is Geocaching is a
relatively new leisure sport. The popularity of the game has expanded far
beyond anyone's imagination, yes I'm sure even Jeremy's. The Park Services
can't handle it's growth because they don't have the staff to do it!
My question is have you personally approached park officials in your
area? Have you spent hours on the phone with them, gone to meet with them on
request or scheduled appointments with them to try to reach a resolve? Have
you gone out of your way to introduce yourself to them?
I have many times, the members of MGS have also spent several hours in
meetings, on the phone, or drafting letters to the officials, we have
invited them to our events, and we have finally been able to meet a resolve
with simple guidelines that involve common sense, common courtesy, and the
least amount of restrictions to the Geocacher.
If you have such wonderful ideas to promote and protect the sport of
Geocaching have you politely discussed them with Jeremy or anyone at
Geocaching.com/Groundspeak? Or have you just assumed they don't want to hear
it so you slam them instead? If you indeed feel so threatened by
Geocaching.com's agenda why not post your ideas here? I am sure many would
be interested.
> If this isn't a business then he needs to let others contribute their
bandwidth
> and programming skills.
I won't even go there.. There has been too many ideas that I have come
up with in the past for the website and mailed them to Jeremy and shortly
there after I have seen them on the website. So don't tell me he's not using
others talents and ideas to develop the site I won't hear of it.
> Jeremy Irish appears to be more roadblock than anything.
> He's upset some very capable people during a time that they could have
been a
> real asset to the hobby. I know he used to lurk here so feel free to take
that
> personally Jeremy. :-)
>
> I'd love it if Scout, blscearce, Tresokies, Fouts, Kablooey, Buxley,
ClayJar, or
> almost anyone else had registered the geocaching.com domain from the
onset.
You speak as though you are a self appointed expert in the game old
man.. You're blowing allot of hot air and I have not seen any clue of
motivation behind it other than the flames from your fingers.. (And that's
not saying much by way of active motivation) I also use Buxley's site, in
fact it's one of my favorite sites when it comes to getting the scoop fast
on what is where.. I've also spoken to him via email several times. But yet
I've noticed he does not publicly slam Jeremy or Geocaching.com. I don't
mean to blow flames up your ass, but it irks me to no end when people sit
back and complain, then slam people without justification and no visible
motivation to improve the matter.
> Even if the hobby was smaller I think we'd all be much better off.
Well, as I said, this hobby has taken off like a rocket, faster than
anyone imagined so that's neither here nor there.. We just have to work with
what we've got. And instead of creating a civil war and slamming people who
try to make a difference over the deal work at making a resolve or the hobby
will get much smaller as it slowly becomes illegal.
Now, without personal attacks towards anyone what is the logical
resolve? How can Geocaching.com and any of the hundreds of club's and
organizations that have sprout up around the game and around the globe
handle this situation? How do we ultimately enforce the 'Approval' method
and then prove we've been approved? How do we motivate people to seek
approval in the first place without being slammed and coined as the cache
police? How do we get people to cooperate with a set of guidelines placed by
park services? How do WE make a difference TOGETHER rather than separate
ourselves and throw stones at the other?
Patiently waiting a flameless logical reply..
Wendy Chatley Green
:"Randall J. Berry" <ad...@mdgps.net> wrote in message
:news:une8pmg...@corp.supernews.com...
:> I have many times, the members of MGS have also spent several hours in
:> meetings, on the phone, or drafting letters to the officials, we have
:> invited them to our events, and we have finally been able to meet a resolve
:> with simple guidelines that involve common sense, common courtesy, and the
:> least amount of restrictions to the Geocacher.
:
:I commend you for this. This kind of openness and willingness to listen,
:compromise and adapt is a good trait.
:
:Pardon me for injecting some skepticism about whether your attitude is shared by
:all. Recently, the Arizona Republic published a report that theft and damage at
:archaeological sites has increased when geocaches are placed there, either on
:purpose or without knowing the significance of the site. Jeremy Irish's comment
:in the geocaching.com forums was this: "Is it me or are we moving to a Habitrail
:society? I look forward to the day when we will walk through tubes at parks."
I read that discussion when it originally ran. I just went back to
check my memory.
The above quote was part of a longer post in which Jeremy noted that
he had responded to the Arizona park managers and did not understand
why the reporter who wrote the original article contacted him or the
other site admins and why the article stated that he (Jeremy) had not
responded to the park managers. He expresses displeasure with the
one-sidedness of the article and its guilt by association.
Given the tenor of the rest of the post, I took Jeremy's "Habitrail"
comment to be sarcasm (esp. with the graphic below it). You appear to
have taken it as support for Habitrail Parks (tm) for all.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Wendy Chatley Green
:"Wendy Chatley Green" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
:news:sp0fnu06u36vmp78b...@4ax.com...
:> Given the tenor of the rest of the post, I took Jeremy's "Habitrail"
:> comment to be sarcasm (esp. with the graphic below it). You appear to
:> have taken it as support for Habitrail Parks (tm) for all.
:
:I took it as sarcasm. I did not take it as a serious attempt to work with land
:managers to "resolve [an environmental issue] with simple guidelines that
:involve common sense, common courtesy, and the least amount of restrictions to
:the Geocacher." My perception may be wrong. If so, maybe any lurking land
:managers came away with the wrong impression, too.
:
Any land manager who cannot understand why the writer of the complaint
might be peeved enough to be sarcastic is a fool, IMO, and not worthy
of a managerial position.
Of course, I don't understand how anyone is supposed to know that an
unmarked area is off-limits. Did I get the only GPSr without a
telepathy option?
Wendy Chatley Green
:"Wendy Chatley Green" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
:news:005fnu0o2s2buho59...@4ax.com...
:> Any land manager who cannot understand why the writer of the complaint
:> might be peeved enough to be sarcastic is a fool, IMO, and not worthy
:> of a managerial position.
:
:First sarcasm, then call the land managers fools. Neither approach is conducive
:to "resolving [an environmental issue] with simple guidelines that involve
:common sense, common courtesy, and the least amount of restrictions to the
:Geocacher."
Any manager with no understanding of human nature is a poor
manager and should be replaced. It won't happen in my lifetime, but I
still hold this opinion.
:
:> Of course, I don't understand how anyone is supposed to know that an
:> unmarked area is off-limits. Did I get the only GPSr without a
:> telepathy option?
:
:More sarcasm, I suppose. No, you aren't supposed to know that an unmarked area
:is off limits. But now that you know that some archaeological sites aren't
:marked, and that some already have geocaches placed nearby, what can we do to
:better ensure no damage to these treasures by people in search of trinkets?
If the site is *that* valuable, guard it. If no one is
interested enough in it to fence it, gate it, cover it in glass, et
al., how can it be a "treasure"?
I like conserved land. I donate to causes that conserve it.
I go out and maintain such land. I don't sit around and hope that no
one is developing it. If I do nothing to conserve it, I am wrong to
complain if that land is paved over.
Pictographs, IMO, deserve the same. Either someone actively
protects them or they lose them. If there is no money for such
efforts, then the people who value pictographs should dig into their
pockets and raise some. Pretending that pictographs don't exist in
the hopes that they won't be disturbed isn't working.
Wendy Chatley Green
:The reaction by geocachers? Mostly defensive. Denial (you can't prove geocachers
:did it). Blame shifting (if it's a treasure, why didn't someone else protect
:it?). Ridicule (Habitrails, fools). Notably missing is much discussion about
:what geocachers themselves can do to assist in protecting archaeological sites,
:just by adapting their favorite hobby to be more sensitive to such issues.
Many people will be respectful of a valued site *if they know what and
where it is.* I can't protect something if I don't know it needs
protecting (other than the usual be careful not to damage Nature
actions).
We're probably arguing to cross purposes. You appear to want
geocachers to do all the adjusting. I think land managers need to see
things from the point-of-view of a land user--hiker, camper,
geocacher, et al. We users should not have to tread on eggshells
scared stiff that each bit of earth under our shoes is a valuable
archaeological site that will get us fined or jailed if we step wrong.
Communication is required on *both* sides. Land managers, who have
the knowledge of what they want preserved, have to let others know
that those sites are to be preserved. Many people will honor such
requests. Others, geocachers or not, will still be jerks. Keeping
people in ignorance, then jumping on them for not knowing is (as much
as you'll hate to read the word), a stupid policy.
mrcpu
Rob
Marty Fouts
"Randall J. Berry" <ad...@mdgps.net> writes:
> How fair is it to 'blame' Jeremy anyway?
Who said it should be fair? Irish set himself up as an arbitrator of
geocaching. Makes him a 'fair' target for criticism.
> Have any of you maintained a website which holds as much demand as
> Geocaching.com does?
Yes.
> Have any of you considered the costs of the bandwidth alone not to
> mention the additional equipment costs, and the man/woman hours to
> maintain it?
Yes.
> Don't you think the folks at Groundspeak deserve to
> make a few bucks?
No. I don't think anyone *deserves* to make a few bucks.
> Besides who said it was mandatory to give them anything at all?
> Talking about ratios I'll be willing to bet you the ratio of
> freeloaders to subscribers on geocaching.com are about 100 to 1 if
> not more!
The people who place caches, maintain caches, go through the trouble
of reporting the location of caches, write cache descriptions, check
log entries, and so forth are hardly 'freeloaders'.
> For the record.. I have maintained such a site in the past. And the
> reason that it is part of the past is because of my dedication for
> it to remain free.. As you could imagine it's own popularity and
> un-compensated expenses forced if off the web..
Can't imagine that at all. But then you and I probably have a
different understanding of what 'free' means in a market economy, and
I can think of any number of successful free sites that rely a lot
less on the membership for their content than geocaching.com does.
> So no, I don't blame the folks a Groundspeak for trying to re-coup
> some of the expenses they have laid out for nothing over the past
> few years.. I should have done the same thing myself.. And yes, I am
> a Charter Member of Geocaching.com..
Sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.
But then, this is the place for sour grapes, so have a bunch on me.
Do not mistake me here. I fully understand that Jeremy et al provide a
useful service to the geocaching community and that such a service
needs to be subsidized in order to continue.
But I also understand that supplying this service does not equate to
being the arbitrator of what geocaching is, and I am disappointed that
the community has, on the whole, allowed Groundspeak to take that
role.
If you don't want this thread to be anything other than a mutual
bitching society, then you might want to give some thought to and
voice an opinion about how control of the hobby can return to the
hands of the hobbiest, while the service providers are appropriately
compensated for the service they provide.
Eric O'Connor
"Wendy Chatley Green" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> Keeping people in ignorance, then jumping on
>> them for not knowing is (as much as you'll hate
>> to read the word), a stupid policy.
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The article points out that even the land managers are ignorant of where all the
>archaeological sites are. They are being discovered all the time, sometimes by
>geocachers. The Arizona Republic article communicated this fact and the danger
>such sites face from careless recreational use, including geocaching. As much as
>you like to use the word, this is not stupid policy and communicating it is not
>jumping on people.
I'd absopositively love to believe that to a man/chick (Hey I live in
Berkeley..man/chicks are everywhere) geocachers are cautious and respectful to
their surroundings..
I've witnessed far too many little things to take that stance seriously.
If archaeological sites are being impacted more around X than Y, and the only
difference between X and Y is that someone placed some tupperware in the
vicinity of X. It would strike me as prudent to look closer at the tupperware
and what it stands for.
If the tupperware isn't having an impact, it must be something else. Isolating
the problem is also part of a process. Acting in a defensive manner will just
motivate them to up the dosage and they have access to bigger hardware than most
any geocacher.
I'd also like to take a second and state for the record that I welcome
pro-Jeremy/Groundspeak people in here. I'd love for people to use this as a
neutral area where the gloves come off and the issues can be resolved...
A little taste of Geneva if you will.
Eric O'Connor
Scout's doing a wonderful job so far but he might want to know he's not alone.
I wrote:
>> I was at $40 before memberships started and would have given over $100 by
>> now....
Randall wrote:
> Wow! I've spent over $500 in the past 6 months alone promoting this
>hobby because it's something I enjoy.. You won't hear me crying about it,
The $40 (roughly) was just a straight donation... keychains and all that other
stuff were something separate.
I've also made donations to Navicache, since it's the hobby I'm interested in
promoting rather than any particular site.
I've spent around $1500 in total promoting the hobby, if you must have a number.
I wrote:
>> He also needs to be more aggressive with getting park approvals to be a
>standard approach.
Randall wrote:
> My question is have you personally approached park officials in your
>area? Have you spent hours on the phone with them, gone to meet with them on
>request or scheduled appointments with them to try to reach a resolve? Have
>you gone out of your way to introduce yourself to them?
Absolutely not... I refuse to take responsibility for my fellow cachers.
Giving the local official my name and contact information will just give them an
excuse to pin any idiotic behavior on me (through association). The old
expression "No good deed goes unpunished" is speaking loud and clear.
In every cache I hide, I scan the area for possible negative impact and leave a
variety of ways for them (or anyone) to get in touch with me. Including my real
name and cell number.
Local orgs such as the MGS fill an important role in this area since it
potentially takes the burden of contact off an individual.
Randall wrote:
> If you have such wonderful ideas to promote and protect the sport of
>Geocaching have you politely discussed them with Jeremy or anyone at
>Geocaching.com/Groundspeak? Or have you just assumed they don't want to hear
>it so you slam them instead? If you indeed feel so threatened by
>Geocaching.com's agenda why not post your ideas here? I am sure many would
>be interested.
Let's just say I felt concerned enough to start a newsgroup that couldn't be
selectively purged of ideas. I've made dozens of suggestions over the past
year-n-change and have never felt as though the PTB were receptive.
Selective would be a better description than receptive.
I've had much more receptive communication with other businesses I utilize.
My expectations start off dismally low, so to lower them further is just sad.
Me again:
>> If this isn't a business then he needs to let others contribute their
>>bandwidth and programming skills.
Randall wrote:
> I won't even go there.. There has been too many ideas that I have come
>up with in the past for the website and mailed them to Jeremy and shortly
>there after I have seen them on the website. So don't tell me he's not using
>others talents and ideas to develop the site I won't hear of it.
I never said he was afraid to use people. Making use of them is something
different in that it requires cooperation. All I've ever seen from that camp is
our way or the highway.
Boku no:
>> I'd love it if Scout, blscearce, Tresokies, Fouts, Kablooey, Buxley,
>>ClayJar, or almost anyone else had registered the geocaching.com domain from the
>>onset.
Randall wrote:
> You speak as though you are a self appointed expert in the game old
>man.. You're blowing allot of hot air and I have not seen any clue of
>motivation behind it other than the flames from your fingers..
Where exactly did I list myself? I'm clearly absent from the above list.
I also started that statement with "I'd love it if..." which implies opinion
rather than a statement of facts.
Randall wrote:
> I also use Buxley's site, in fact it's one of my favorite sites when it comes to getting the scoop fast
>on what is where.. I've also spoken to him via email several times. But yet
>I've noticed he does not publicly slam Jeremy or Geocaching.com.
I've shaken hands with the guy on multiple occasions. The data you receive off
his site is only there because he's able to circumvent Jeremy's blockade.
You're correct that Buxley doesn't speak his mind with regards to Groundspeak in
a public arena, Jeremy has previously threatened to legal action against Buxley,
so I can understand why he'd be cautious.
Randall wrote:
>instead of creating a civil war and slamming people who try to make a difference over the deal
>work at making a resolve or the hobby will get much smaller as it slowly becomes illegal.
The first shots in this civil war were fired from the Groundspeak camp.
If you'll go back and read the threads (before your entry last November, I
believe they were in June) you'll see many people desperately trying to make
this work and behaving in a manner that is far more polite than I admittedly
could have mustered. The argumentative people were the JBT on the server side.
Don't take my word for this, go read the threads yourself.
Randall takes a fresh breath and proposes:
> Now, without personal attacks towards anyone what is the logical
>resolve? How can Geocaching.com and any of the hundreds of club's and
>organizations that have sprout up around the game and around the globe
>handle this situation?
That's the million dollar question and one that's been neglected by those who
claim to speak for the hobby.
Scout's idea of a check-box is a good one.
Each regional club (like your MGS) can be the liaison between the park services
and all of the listing sites. The ranger doesn't care where a cache is listed if
it's properly declared and someone is reasonably accountable for it.
Currently if there isn't a regional group, there isn't any natural way to form
one. In my opinion, all of these concerns should have been addressed before
diverting attention to glitter. Keeping the hobby respectable is more important
than honing a potentially profitable past time.
>How do we ultimately enforce the 'Approval' method and then prove we've been approved?
Enforcing anything in this hobby is dicey at best, but if people feel that this
is their hobby rather than something being
>How do we motivate people to seek approval in the first place without being slammed and
>coined as the cache police? How do we get people to cooperate with a set of guidelines placed
>by park services? How do WE make a difference TOGETHER rather than separate
>ourselves and throw stones at the other?
Well, most of the problems I see have to do with communicating with cache
seekers. Cache pages might have to become more aggressive at communicating local
concerns if forums go unread. Caches themselves might need to list more
information about what the community needs to address.
Unless everyone is wanking to the same centerfold....everything else is just
talk.
> Patiently waiting a flameless logical reply..
Well, "You speak as though you are a self appointed expert" wasn't exactly flame
less either, but my asbestos BVDs have been through worse.
Eric O'Connor
Eric O'Connor dropped the ball by failing to finish:
>Enforcing anything in this hobby is dicey at best, but if people feel that this
>is their hobby rather than something being
...directed by people who may never visit the area in question. Maybe they'll
step up and act as though this is more than someone else's fad.
A little heart is needed from each one of us. Park personnel shouldn't be given
extra duties just for our hobby. We have to make this workable for them in a way
that their time isn't diverted away from the duties that they currently are
assigned..
Unless of course you all want to start chipping in user fees.
My car has a parking sticker...should my cache?
Randall J. Berry
solution to these problems facing the Geocaching community. There is no
sense in bashing or blaming individuals or organizations in any part. What
we need to do is work on helping BOTH the Geocacher and the property
management agencies meet an understanding. In order to do this we have to be
willing to set aside our differences and stand together as a community in
respect of the sport/game/hobby whatever you wish to call it.
Lets face it, All Geocachers aren't perfect, but I like to think for the
sake of the game that the majority are decent people. The same goes for
property mangers, they might not be perfect either. But they have a job to
do and thier actions may not always be what they personally feel but what
thier superiors tell them to do..
This is the dilemma I faced in the beginning. Park management agencies
in Maryland didn't know very much about Geocaching. (But they all knew about
the blown-up cache.) They didn't understand the concept or rules of the
game. When I first got involved in Geocaching I was hooked. I've always
enjoyed hiking. Now in some silly sort of way I had another reason to hike,
a challenge had been introduced. Other than the physical challenge of the
terrain, now I had to actually search for something. Not to mention the fact
that I have spent most of my life involved with the Radio Broadcast
Industry, I just love radio! (Believe me radio is a labor of love sometimes!
:) And a GPS is in all respects a radio. Then I heard about a threat to my
favorite past time, and it was rapidly becoming more than just a rumor so I
created Maryland Geocaching Society out of hopes that some sort of liaison,
or organization could help reduce that threat. In the beginning I was
literally bombarded by concerned park officials. Besides my regular job I
was spending a great deal of time going to meetings, talking on the phone,
answering emails, listening to other geocachers, showing up at various park
service offices and politely introducing myself and providing them with
documentation about geocaching and some resources they could use, as well as
my email address and phone number.
I'll admit I'm not the best person when it comes to getting the exact
point across but for the most part I did my best. Quite a few park officials
now have an understanding of what Geocaching is, who's involved, what's
involved and some have even expressed a personal interest in the game.
Thankfully now I have an excellent PR Guy, and Gal who are both fellow
Geocachers and they are a wonderful asset to the organization as far as
putting the right words together in a proposal and making things work for
both sides. He and his wife have spent many hours making deals, correcting
rumors, and sharing information with the park officials to reach an
agreement which in turn led to an approved set of very simple guidelines
which have been accepted for the central region of Maryland State Parks. (
http://www.mdgps.net/central_guidelines.html ) This for us is a major hurdle
because one of the parks happens to be one of the most popular. And a few
weeks prior to the agreement the park management had strictly said, all
cache's have got to go, and none shall be placed here in the future.
Hopefully in the near future these guidelines will be accepted statewide.
Here's what we have to do. Rather than blame organizations, government
entities, individuals or anything else. We've got to work on a solution to
the problems that are arising nationwide which pose a threat to our favorite
outdoor activity.
Yes, there is a communication breakdown somewhere in the link between
Geocachers, and the parks and properties management agencies, yes there is a
great deal of land out there that has no signage, no warning, and no
documents of any sort available to the public to protect the property from
involuntary damage due to geocaching, although I refuse to believe
Geocaching is the sole reason for the damage, but they need to blame
somebody. And since Geocaching is new and often misunderstood unfortunately
it becomes the scapegoat. And yes, when I was a 'newbie' I found out the
hard way that some properties even though they are open to the public I
thought it harmless to place a cache.. Wrong! I was told that legally I
could have been hauled away and put away.. However, the officer was
appreciative of my honesty and cooperation that he let me go with a stern
warning. (And he kept my cache as evidence!) :-( Who's fault was that?
Mine. Because I didn't ask first.
Here's the scenario; A vandal or 'punk' doesn't often publicly post his
or her intentions to go vandalize a particular location. Some might, but the
majority don't. The park service has millions of acres they manage,
certainly they can't patrol it all. So, along comes a Geocacher who
innocently publicly posts his or her intentions to hide a cache at such a
location. Well, now the park service starts looking at that particular area.
And if you think they aren't watching the website you are sadly mistaken!
For a while there the cache reports I was getting from park officials were
more frequent and nearly to the exact day that a cache was posted on
geocaching.com. So they are watching! Now, as they start paying closer
attention to these areas they may notice vandalism, trash scattered around,
evidence parties, trespassing, etc. that they may not have noticed before.
So, who gets the blame? The innocent who posted the cords for all to read.
Was it solely the fault of Geocachers? Probably not but then again, they
probably were not focusing thier attention on that particular piece of
property before the public notice was posted. So now the Geocachers are
blamed guilty, by association. Unfair, but true.
That is what we have to work on. Somewhere we have to find a bridge to
fill those gaps so that both the Geocachers, and property management are
working together. The majority of the park services are understaffed to take
on this new role, and we certainly don't need to waste anymore tax dollars
on employing a staff specifically for this, so this is where the volunteer
Geocaching organizations have the chance to be the hero, by doing thier best
to get this information to the rest of the Geocaching community, and getting
the concerns of the Geocachers to the proper authorities.
Park officials do not want nor do they deserve to be ganged up on by
hundreds of people, for the same reason that you wouldn't want to be either.
So what is needed is more volunteer organizations, and more joint
participation between these organizations. This way the word has a better
chance to get out, and the park officials have someone to route that word
through. Geocachers can't bend over backwards for the officials, nor should
the officials be expected to bend over for the Geocachers, so with these
organizations in place hopefully a middle ground can be met making way for
minimum sacrifice on both sides. Let's face it the major sources for
Geocaching, or the park officials cannot do it all. And it's not fair to
expect them to. If you enjoy this game, then it is your responsibility to
join an existing organization, or start one in your area. Otherwise, the
bottom line is if this game is outlawed then you have no right to complain
because you did nothing to share your voice and show your responsibility. As
the old saying goes.. "You're either a part of the problem, or a part of the
solution" What's your choice?
Lets hope that purely by showing an effort to cooperate, and showing
that Geocachers in general are responsible people with respects of nature,
and property of others. What we certainly do not need is people going around
assuming the answer is automatically going to be NO, so they do it anyway
without asking first. As publicly posted earlier in this thread. That sort
of attitude will certainly be the death of this hobby.
I know there are interested persons lurking in this newsgroup. Because
in the past 2 days since I began to post in this thread 8 new members, 6
from out of state, 1 from overseas, and another from Canada have applied for
membership, and/or subscribed to our newsletter. Not to mention the 5
additional members who joined from Maryland. Which puts our membership at
roughly 100 members now.
--
Randall J. Berry
dav...@mdgps.net
Maryland Geocaching Society
Maryland's Premiere Geocaching Organization
Recognized by the State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Website: http://www.mdgps.net
Forums: http://forums.mdgps.net
This message has been scanned and found to be virus free.
All mail is scanned by Norton Anti-Virus prior to sending.
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:al8mes$1noduh$1...@ID-127818.news.dfncis.de...
> "Wendy Chatley Green" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:m9gfnukg3s2ljrtiq...@4ax.com...
> > We're probably arguing to cross purposes. You appear to want
> > geocachers to do all the adjusting.
>
> Not at all. It's just that I am a geocacher. I can change what I do. I am
not a
> land manager. All I can do about them is talk about what they should do.
They
> are probably two steps ahead of me.
>
> > Land managers, who have the knowledge of what
> > they want preserved, have to let others know
> > that those sites are to be preserved.
>
> The land managers for archaeological sites communicated the danger through
the
> Arizona Republic article. What did they get? Denial, blame shifting and
> ridicule. I suppose they'll persevere. Surely there were some silent
readers who
> learned a little about the nature of archaeological sites and will change
their
> behavior because of it.
>
> > Keeping people in ignorance, then jumping on
> > them for not knowing is (as much as you'll hate
> > to read the word), a stupid policy.
>
> The article points out that even the land managers are ignorant of where
all the
> archaeological sites are. They are being discovered all the time,
sometimes by
> geocachers. The Arizona Republic article communicated this fact and the
danger
> such sites face from careless recreational use, including geocaching. As
much as
> you like to use the word, this is not stupid policy and communicating it
is not
> jumping on people.
>
> ---
> Scout
>
>
Randall J. Berry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.rec.geocaching
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Who placed the very first cache?
> "Randall J. Berry" <ad...@mdgps.net> wrote in message
> news:ungd1g3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Now, as they start paying closer attention to these areas they may
> > notice vandalism, trash scattered around, evidence parties, trespassing,
> > etc. that they may not have noticed before. So, who gets the blame?
> > The innocent who posted the cords for all to read.
> > Was it solely the fault of Geocachers? Probably not but then again,
> > they probably were not focusing thier attention on that particular piece
> > of property before the public notice was posted. So now the Geocachers
> > are blamed guilty, by association. Unfair, but true.
>
> All in all, a very well worded post. Maryland geocachers are lucky to have
you
> as a spokesman.
>
> However, in the paragraph I quoted, I still detect blame shifting. Land
managers
> are not blaming geocachers for all bad things. They know better than that.
That is why it was posted as a scenario, of course which means a
hypothetical explanation of an event which may, or may not happen. However,
now that you brought my attention to it you are right. My intent really was
not to focus on geocachers being blamed, but to bring light to the fact that
Geocaching is high on the watch list for most property management agencies
right now be it state or local level. And that this vandalism and theft may
indeed have been going on un noticed for some time. However, since a
Geocacher has posted a cache, this particular piece of property now falls
under a watchful eye when before it may not have been. So in a sense, yes
that does make the Geocachers look bad.
What is the solution to this? Ask first. If the management agency has
any problem with the idea they may reject it. And perhaps the offer might
not necessarily be 'no, go away'. They may have an alternative suggestion to
your requested location. At the very least this may provoke them to scope
out the area first themselves. And if any damage has been done prior the
grant or denial of the request they cannot even think about geocaching as a
result of the problems. Here again, not to say they would, but it may
totally
eliminate us from the picture because they may have checked the area, found
the
damage (if any), that a geocacher may overlook and geocaching cannot be even
remotely thought of as a source, or contribution to the problem. Because the
cache is not there yet. If everything checks out OK, whether a grant or
denial of permission is issued then the reputation of the game is not
bruised.
Now, if permission is granted the responsibility of maintaining the
cache falls in the cache owners lap. If such damage does begin to become
apparent either intentional or accidental, then it is the owners
responsibility to remove the cache to prevent any further damage. If any
environmental damage (intentional or accidental) should become apparent it
is the cache owners responsibility to remove the cache. At present there are
too may caches that are sitting un maintained by thier owner. This is wrong.
The owner should pay a visit to the cache at least every few months. Sign
the log to report the visit, and make an owners note on the geocache posting
about the maintenance visit. If he/she cannot maintain the cache they need
to appoint someone who can do it. Perhaps another cacher who has a cache
nearby that does not mind the extra effort. This shows responsibility.
Now that brings up another common sense solution that I have. I know
that many Geocachers like to find caches, or perhaps hide caches at
interesting places they may find while on vacation. Which in this case may
make routine maintenance inconvenient or perhaps impossible. It is the cache
owners responsibility to find someone who can maintain it before the cache
is placed.
Yes, this does complicate things a little, but if someone were to
contact me and say, 'I'm going to be on vacation in Maryland next month,
I'd like to go caching and perhaps place a cache can you help me?'
If the person has an idea which is convenient for me, yes I would. If not
I am sure I could refer him/her to someone nearby the area of thier choice
that may be able to help them maintain the cache. A similar posting on the
forums could accomplish this as well. This all falls under the idea of being
a
responsible cacher. There are too many caches already with no one to
maintain
them, the cache owner has left the game, or has dropped it off an a
pass-through
and nobody maintains the cache.
These are just a few common problems with the game right now that need
to be worked out. And yes, we should get together and recommend that
solutions to these problem be posted on the geocaching websites.
mrcpu
wrong.
> The owner should pay a visit to the cache at least every few months. Sign
> the log to report the visit, and make an owners note on the geocache
posting
> about the maintenance visit. If he/she cannot maintain the cache they
need
> to appoint someone who can do it. Perhaps another cacher who has a cache
> nearby that does not mind the extra effort. This shows responsibility.
This was a different thread. My take on it with a cache I have about 2 km
in the woods from my parents house is this; IF someone goes to visit the
cache and lets me know it needs work, I'll go up there right away. IF the
cache hasn't been visited in a couple of months I'll go check on it. BUT a
cache that is getting decent traffic is "self" reporting and often people,
myself included will help out with cache maintainence. For example I usually
have an extra ziplock bag or two to help if a bag is ripped. I've even
started carrying an extra logbook just in case the logbook is damaged.
On the other hand, I'd like to see Geocaching.com incorporate some
"automated janitor processes" to look for cache owners who's email address
doesn't work or who haven't logged-in in a while flagged, then after a
period of time have their caches put up for adoption in an automated manner.
Also, having a "Needs Maintainence" checkbox on the log a find page would be
good too.
So far, in Canada, there has been little or no involvment with the
authorities with regards to geocaching. There has recently been a couple of
discussions but nothing major. We don't have the cache density that you
guys do either down in the US so that may be part of it!
Cheers,
Rob
Randall J. Berry
> > These are just a few common problems with the game right now that
need
> > to be worked out. And yes, we should get together and recommend that
> > solutions to these problem be posted on the geocaching websites.
>
recommendation
> limited to educating geocachers about proper behavior or do you also
advocate
> changes by the geocaching Web sites to enforce adherence to the
recommended good
> behavior.
>
> ---
> Scout
>
I actually recomend both. Of course we cannot inforce what goes on
someone elses website but it is still important that we speak our minds
about the issue in hopes that it may change. The problem still arises, that
nobody, including myself wants to be hated in this game, we don't want to be
considered the cache police, game spoilers, party poopers, what ever. All we
do want it to enjoy the game and help others enjoy it as well.
Most importantly educating other Geocachers is a big issue. Especially
the new comers. By organization, and self policing hopefully peer pressure
alone will promote responsibility. Of course there will always be the 'my
way' gang but we can't stop them. All we can hope for is that they stay a
minority.
The whole deal relies on responsibility. Who's responsible? Everyone who
participates is responsible for thier own actions, with the common courtesy
in mind that thier actions may also be considered the actions of others who
participate and choose to cooperate.
Let's say, if I go out and hide a cache that I know is an off limits
area, or don't ask permission first. The property manager finds out and is
angered by what is technically a 'tresspass'. Then everyone looks bad. The
next time someone does ask to hide a cache first, the property managers
answer may very well be no. In which case you can't blame them, because they
may be using thier own best judgment based on a previous experience.
'Geocaching breeds trouble' may already be subconsciously pressed into
their mind. Now one person has messed it up for everyone. Here again, not to
say that this will happen but it could. Why take chances? When all that may
be required in the first place is 'please may I?' You may get 'no you can't
there, but you can here' reply.
If the answer is no, because ground is a protected, or otherwise off
limits as a responsible Geocacher you should respect that. I mean we are the
second largest continent on the planet. (Speaking of North America) So it's
not as though we are limited in places to hide caches. There's billions of
acres out there and nearly endless possibilities.