Trying To Work Within Nysdec Rules On Caches

[+CaptainNoir]

Greetings all,

 

I have been very disappointed with NYSDEC's positon on caches placed in Stace Forests and Wildlife Management Areas (notice how I did not say "preserves"). There are so many absolutely wonderful areas included in the DEC managed areas to visit, it seems a shame that our sport is being denied access. It is my understanding that Virtuals are the only caches that are currently accepted by NYSDEC and will be posted by Groundspeak. What I am kicking around is an idea that is a variant on the virtual theme, but still requires participants to physically go to the site, seek out a particular object, and report back to Groundspeak to get credit for the find.

 

Here is how it might work:

 

A Cacher locates a position that he/she thinks would be a good spot for a cache, keeping in mind all the rules of setting a cache properly(no private propery,etc.).

 

The Cacher request approval from Groundspeak to place the cache at that location just like we have in the past. After Groundspeak determines that the site is acceptable, a serial # is issued for that site.

 

The Cacher returns to the site and finds an object that resides there naturallly(Rock,stump, fallen tree, etc.). The serial number is marked on the object with something that is biodigradeable such as marker, chalk, soap stone, so long as it does not permanantly disfigure the object and washes away over time.

 

Groundspeak lists the cache on Geocaching for the public to find.

 

The Cacher must find the object and report the serial # to take credit for the find.

 

My thought was to use the already accepted pratice of virtual caches and augment it with the ID requirement. This method brings nothing into the woods to be left behind, the serial # disappears over a short time, the cache site would have a finite existence ensuring that the area leading to it is not overly burdend with foot traffic. Maybe it could be called an "I.D. Cache". Serial Cache has a less than peaceful feel to it, wouldn't want to be know as a "Serial Cacher". Might scare the kids.

 

Well, what do you think? Is it worth mentioning again or is it destined to be shot down in its youth. Of course, it might all be for not if NYSDEC and Groundspeak vote it down. I would hope that it has a chance.

 

Thanks for your input,

 

S. A. Black

[+Renegade Knight]

If the serial number was already there it would be a standard virtual cache. If it was in a container it would be a code word micro. As proposed it is a vairation in that you don't have a container, but you have to look for a serial number.

 

It has none of the fun of finding the box, and for all intents and purposes is a virtual cache.

[+Alan2]

If it's in a really neat place to hike to and see, then make the cache a multi and use the number or some other feature to provide the coordinates of the container hidden just out of the DEP area.

 

I've done a cache kinda of like that in the Catskills.

Edited December 4, 2004 by Alan2

[Keystone]

I would suggest pursuing other ideas. A codeword written onto an object would not be listed on this site as a geocache. A virtual cache might meet the part of the test regarding the inability to place a physical cache nearby, but it would still require finding a distinct target that is of unique and compelling general interest to geocachers... not just a nice hike, a nice trail, a nice view or a natural feature like a lake or a mountain.

[+Squealy]

Hmmmmmm -

[+New York Admin]

If you write on an object with marker, soapstone, chalk or anything biodegradable what’s to say it will still be there next month when the next finder comes along. Cache permanence issue so cache isn’t approvable.

 

Writing on an object, even with a biodegradable substance is nothing more than graffiti and that is certainly not acceptable

[+JMBella]

Greetings all,

 

I have been very disappointed with NYSDEC's positon on caches placed in Stace Forests and Wildlife Management Areas (notice how I did not say "preserves"). There are so many absolutely wonderful areas included in the DEC managed areas to visit, it seems a shame that our sport is being denied access. It is my understanding that Virtuals are the only caches that are currently accepted by NYSDEC and will be posted by Groundspeak. What I am kicking around is an idea that is a variant on the virtual theme, but still requires participants to physically go to the site, seek out a particular object, and report back to Groundspeak to get credit for the find.

 

Here is how it might work:

 

A Cacher locates a position that he/she thinks would be a good spot for a cache, keeping in mind all the rules of setting a cache properly(no private propery,etc.).

 

The Cacher request approval from Groundspeak to place the cache at that location just like we have in the past. After Groundspeak determines that the site is acceptable, a serial # is issued for that site.

 

The Cacher returns to the site and finds an object that resides there naturallly(Rock,stump, fallen tree, etc.). The serial number is marked on the object with something that is biodigradeable such as marker, chalk, soap stone, so long as it does not permanantly disfigure the object and washes away over time.

 

Groundspeak lists the cache on Geocaching for the public to find.

 

The Cacher must find the object and report the serial # to take credit for the find.

 

My thought was to use the already accepted pratice of virtual caches and augment it with the ID requirement. This method brings nothing into the woods to be left behind, the serial # disappears over a short time, the cache site would have a finite existence ensuring that the area leading to it is not overly burdend with foot traffic. Maybe it could be called an "I.D. Cache". Serial Cache has a less than peaceful feel to it, wouldn't want to be know as a "Serial Cacher". Might scare the kids.

 

Well, what do you think? Is it worth mentioning again or is it destined to be shot down in its youth. Of course, it might all be for not if NYSDEC and Groundspeak vote it down. I would hope that it has a chance.

 

Thanks for your input,

 

S. A. Black

...or, you could just go hide a traditional cache there.

[+CaptainNoir]

Folks,

 

The mention of this idea was to see if it had any value to the group as a whole. I can see that it is a dark whole that no one wishes to enter, so lets call it quits and table it. Thanks for your input.

 

The use of NYSDEC managed land would be a great area to cache in and I hope that someday we all have access to place caches on those lands. Hopefully we won't loose other areas to legislation.

 

Thanks again,

S. A. Black

[+Squealy]

Folks,

 

The mention of this idea was to see if it had any value to the group as a whole. I can see that it is a dark whole that no one wishes to enter, so lets call it quits and table it. Thanks for your input.

 

The use of NYSDEC managed land would be a great area to cache in and I hope that someday we all have access to place caches on those lands. Hopefully we won't loose other areas to legislation.

 

Thanks again,

S. A. Black

Re-read this thread and find the inference.

 

I think you will be surprised.

 

And then do as Joe (JMBella) says.

[+nfa]

Markwell

[Find Now, Log Later?]

If you write on an object with marker, soapstone, chalk or anything biodegradable what’s to say it will still be there next month when the next finder comes along.  Cache permanence issue so cache isn’t approvable.

 

Writing on an object, even with a biodegradable substance is nothing more than graffiti and that is certainly not acceptable

"Certainly not acceptable?" Does that mean geocaching.com has a hard-and-fast rule (or a subjective, case-by-case guideline) prohibiting the practice?

 

While I agree with the principle, and always adhered to it in practice, I can think of dozens of caches, including several approved within the past half-year, that violate that principle.

 

Approvers should refrain from making statements that they know to be patently false. Writing on objects with permanent markers is an ongoing, long-standing and time-honored geocaching.com tradition. Undoubtedly, approvers have found and logged most, if not all, of those caches. Their failure to take corrective action is a clear indication of the actual policy ... more "don't-ask-don't-tell" hypocrisy.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[avroair]

Edited December 8, 2004 by avroair

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

If you write on an object with marker, soapstone, chalk or anything biodegradable what’s to say it will still be there next month when the next finder comes along.  Cache permanence issue so cache isn’t approvable.

 

Writing on an object, even with a biodegradable substance is nothing more than graffiti and that is certainly not acceptable

"Certainly not acceptable?" Does that mean geocaching.com has a hard-and-fast rule (or a subjective, case-by-case guideline) prohibiting the practice?

 

While I agree with the principle, and always adhered to it in practice, I can think of dozens of caches, including several approved within the past half-year, that violate that principle.

 

Approvers should refrain from making statements that they know to be patently false. Writing on objects with permanent markers is an ongoing, long-standing and time-honored geocaching.com tradition. Undoubtedly, approvers have found and logged most, if not all, of those caches. Their failure to take corrective action is a clear indication of the actual policy ... more "don't-ask-don't-tell" hypocrisy.

Bassoon Pilot,

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

We've never seen anything like that??? And I don't see how any Admin would ever approve grafitti as part of a cache... unless it was done without his/her knowledge...

I think what the original poster was talking about was marking a rock or tree or some other part of the natural environment...

which, as far as we are concerned, is

Certainly Not Acceptable...

Edited December 9, 2004 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+JMBella]

I thought we got rid of him.

[+briansnat]

I thought we got rid of him.

You're thinking of Bassoonpilot.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

We've never seen anything like that???

Do you mean, have I seen caches where coordinates were scrawled on a wall, support beam, highway sign, tourist kiosk, jersey barrier, guardrail, park bench, abandoned car, fence post, drainage pipe, sidewalk, coping stone, playground equipment, etc., etc., etc. in paint or "Sharpie" pen? Yes, "and a whole lot more." I encountered "graffiti caches" in every state I cached in, so it is obviously a global, rather than an isolated, issue.

 

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

 

Or perhaps you meant vandalism in the form of little coordinate/clue tags glued, nailed, screwed, or pop-riveted (naturally, without permission) to telephone poles, light poles/fixtures, highway signs, park benches, picnic tables, playground equipment, information kiosks, wooden fences, etc., etc., etc.? Seen plenty of those, as well ... geocachers seem to be quite determined to ensure that their vandalism isn't subsequentally vandalized.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+briansnat]

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

We've never seen anything like that???

Do you mean, have I seen caches where coordinates were scrawled on a wall, support beam, highway sign, tourist kiosk, jersey barrier, guardrail, park bench, abandoned car, fence post, drainage pipe, sidewalk, coping stone, playground equipment, etc., etc., etc. in paint or "Sharpie" pen? Yes, "and a whole lot more." I encountered "graffiti caches" in every state I cached in, so it is obviously a global, rather than an isolated, issue.

 

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

 

Or perhaps you meant vandalism in the form of little coordinate/clue tags glued, nailed, screwed, or pop-riveted (naturally, without permission) to telephone poles, light poles/fixtures, highway signs, park benches, picnic tables, playground equipment, information kiosks, wooden fences, etc., etc., etc.? Seen plenty of those, as well ... geocachers seem to be quite determined to ensure that their vandalism isn't subsequentally vandalized.

That is unconscionable!!! Next time you see it you should report it to the police.

[+CaptainNoir]

Wow, this one has really taken on a life of it's own. Let's take a moment and clarify what the intent was for this post.

 

I enjoy walking though many of the NYSDEC managed areas around my hometown. Placing a cache in these areas seemed like a good idea. NYSDEC disagrees. My idea to alter a virtual cache was an attempt to find a way to place caches in these areas and have them approved by GC.Com. I think from the outset we can say that my original idea has been voted off the island. Bon Voyage. Are there any other constructive ideas that anyone could offer to get caches approved for these areas?

 

It's not the end of the world if these areas are not accepted by GC.Com. There are other areas to cache in, so far. So lets move on from my original post and see if anyone comes up with a winner. Thanks for your interest!

 

SABlack

[+nfa]

Markwell

This earlier post refers/markwell's/link to a discussion on caching on DEC controlled land...read it!!!

 

nfa-jamie

Edited December 10, 2004 by NFA

[+Squealy]

Yeah - hide a traditional cache there because you can now.

[+Renegade Knight]

Wow, this one has really taken on a life of it's own. Let's take a moment and clarify what the intent was for this post.

 

I enjoy walking though many of the NYSDEC managed areas around my hometown. Placing a cache in these areas seemed like a good idea. NYSDEC disagrees. My idea to alter a virtual cache was an attempt to find a way to place caches in these areas and have them approved by GC.Com. I think from the outset we can say that my original idea has been voted off the island. Bon Voyage. Are there any other constructive ideas that anyone could offer to get caches approved for these areas?

 

It's not the end of the world if these areas are not accepted by GC.Com. There are other areas to cache in, so far. So lets move on from my original post and see if anyone comes up with a winner. Thanks for your interest!

 

SABlack

The idea of a virtual to find something already there isn't broke. There is always something to find just unusual enough to serve as a means of verification for a virtual cache.

 

The problem with getting it approved lies elsewhere.

[Paola]

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

We've never seen anything like that???

Do you mean, have I seen caches where coordinates were scrawled on a wall, support beam, highway sign, tourist kiosk, jersey barrier, guardrail, park bench, abandoned car, fence post, drainage pipe, sidewalk, coping stone, playground equipment, etc., etc., etc. in paint or "Sharpie" pen? Yes, "and a whole lot more." I encountered "graffiti caches" in every state I cached in, so it is obviously a global, rather than an isolated, issue.

 

Can you give us an example of a cache where grafitti (or anything written on something other than the actual cache container) is part of the cache and put there by a geocacher?

 

Or perhaps you meant vandalism in the form of little coordinate/clue tags glued, nailed, screwed, or pop-riveted (naturally, without permission) to telephone poles, light poles/fixtures, highway signs, park benches, picnic tables, playground equipment, information kiosks, wooden fences, etc., etc., etc.? Seen plenty of those, as well ... geocachers seem to be quite determined to ensure that their vandalism isn't subsequentally vandalized.

That is unconscionable!!! Next time you see it you should report it to the police.

Hi. Im new to this geocaching. In fact I havent found a cache yet because I dont have a GPS yet. So forgive me if im overstepping myself if I say that the police probably wouldnt care. Stuff written under a park bench with a sharpie pen I think the police have more things to worry about. Besides what harm does it do if people dont see it? Do you call the officer over and say "look here officer its behind this fence post if you look really good you can see it? I dont think the police care about silly stuff like this.

[+HartClimbs]

I thought we got rid of him.

You're thinking of Bassoonpilot.

"Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.....now see what you've gone and done?!"

 

What a great time of year - where people make an extra effort to spread joy and holiday cheer to their brethren. Time to reunite with old friends, and make new ones. (Unfortunately, that strange old uncle with halitosis still smells bad, even if he hasn't come around for a while).

 

Here's wishing everyone a happy holiday season and a safe and happy new year.