eCache

Representation

The National Park Service finally published its policy regarding geocaching (and other activities) in its parks.

The notion of a “treasure hunt” immediately sets off analarm for NPS managers because it implies that the “œhunters” will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. Obviously, uch as we want park visitors to enjoy their experience, we cannot allow a GPS activity if it ould lead to destructive behavior.

Not surprising, NPS has taken a negative stance towards geocaching. At the same time, it encourages virtual caching and perhaps even letterboxing.

Park managers who wish to allow GPS activities will be ost likely to find virtual caching an appropriate form of enjoyment.

and

it is entirely possible hat some parks, particularly those with a vast expanse of backcountry, will have locations where letterbox could be concealed and sought out without causing unacceptable impacts.

It does seem contradictory to allow a letterbox and deny a geocache.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with the reputations of these games. Letterboxing is more than a century old and seems to be played among older folks. Until very recently, the concept of online logging was foreign to the game. Geocaching is far more in-your-face. NPS tries to define the game as:

Geocaching usually involves placing in a remote area a physical cache containing a variety of objects in a weatherproof container.

It is difficult to support this definition of the game. History has demonstrated this is not the case. Furthermore, the current direction of the game is directly counter to this definition.

Now comes the discussion. This discussion is alarming!

Perhaps TPTB at Groundspeak should be the ones doing the contacting?
Mopar/NJ Admin, Groundspeak reviewer

Indeed.
MissJenn, Groundspeak employee

Forgive me, but why would we support a commercial company to deal with this issue? Are you comfortable having this company organize policy decisions? I am not.

Groundspeak has demonstrated throughout its history that it makes decisions in its own interests. As a for-profit company it should. Those interests are not necessarily my interests. The company has shown disdain at rectifying issues. Indeed, its customer service department is so woefully inadequate that folks leave the site regularly. The “tough nuts” attitude toward its customers is legendary. Mr. Irish does not keep his indignant viewpoint to his private company alone:

This is what I usually call nerd logic. Its logical in the sense that it makes logical sense.

Huh?

More than four years ago I warned of this:

GC.com is positioning itself to be the governing body of a game. It is doing so without a mandate from the players.

Jon Stanley responded:

To clarify, GC.com is positioning itself to be the governing body of the caches posted on its servers.

And my retort:

That is problematic. GC.com is not the governing body of the game. As such, who is GC.com to determine what makes the game better overall?

It may be perceived that the game is better because of it, but obviously, there is another side to that coin. It is fine that GC.com regulates what is posted on its servers. It was suggested by another player that the criteria of what makes a cache could be applied to the game elsewhere. It is to that, I made my point.

This all brings to light the problem with annoiting GC.com as geocaching as is constantly stated in the fora. Too much influence on the game is controlled by GC.com.

Some time ago it was suggested that an independent body be formed to handle issues with the game. That would leave GC.com/Groundspeak to do what it does best–host a web site.

There’s an idea that would improve the game, alleviate the frustration felt by some toward the admins, and solve the issue for Groundspeak as to how to ensure quality (defer to the governing body).

Any chance Groundspeak would lead the way to that solution?

Four years later, Groundspeak is reaching beyond what it lists on its servers to act as an intermediary on behalf of geocachers. That is not a task in which I have any confidence in. My dealings with Groundspeak have been such that the company is incapable of presenting itself in a reasonable manner, let alone representing me.

This is the underlying concern I have with local geocaching groups as well.

I continue to speak on this because whatever group is formed will become the de facto group for the state. If it then decides later it will cease being a socialization-only group and will then spread out to represent geocaching for the masses, the group will have siezed upon that authority without support from those it will affect.

A year or so later, such a group formed:

We are a group of active geocachers who use the resources of the South Jersey Geocaching Organization to socialize with other members, work cooperatively with land managers and to promote responsible geocaching in our area.

This group formed without bylaws and a mission. I asked about that. I was told to either accept it or not. It wasn’t long before I was banned. A rule was created among seven people to kick me out unless I pledged allegiance to the group (seriously). And they now proclaim to work with local land owners.

This is the same group that bestowed the “coveted” recommended cache award on a cache that was buried. This group sold merchandise that was copyrighted to another geocacher. Another “illegal” cache was recommended; apparently the No Trespassing sign is optional for this group.

More recently, it sponsored an event to raise funds to cover its operating expenses (cache page was changed). Of course, that opens the entire membership, not to mention the sponsors of the event, to issues. If there was indeed a Chinese Auction and/or raffle that was not properly registered with the state, the fines are hefty. That the only “official” asset is registered to a private person seems problematic to me.

Would you be comfortable of such an organization “stepping up” and negotiating with land owners on your behalf? I am not.

This is the problem with groups anointing themselves the caretakers on behalf of others. I saw this issue four years ago, tried to share my opinion with the local community, was castigated, and stepped aside. Is it any wonder NPS creates such policies as it published? The “custodians” of the game have tarnished the game through its actions. Now it wants to be the ones that handle the issue. Bah! These folks do not represent me.

I made a post years ago that someone picked up and has used as his signature line ever since that sums up the issue:

You see, if a group is going to represent people, it needs to be in touch with those people.

Also blogged on this date . . .

• Election Day - 2009
• Another Tube - 2008
• Eviscerating Mrs. Clinton - 2007
• Social Security - 2007
• Give me Liberty! - 2006
• The Daily Journal Endorses Kean - 2006
• Light - 2006
• It's An Artomatic Cache - 2005