Protecting Geocaching Within the State of Wisconsin?????????

[ecorangers]

“Welcome to the Wisconsin Geocaching Association Website”

“The Wisconsin Geocaching Association (WGA) is a group of geocachers dedicated to promoting and protecting geocaching within the state of Wisconsin. The WGA organizes geocaching events, works with land owners/managers on geocaching policies, educates the public at large about geocaching, and facilitates communication between WGA members.”

Can someone please explain how the WGA and/or it’s members protect geocaching within the state of Wisconsin?

Just curious,
Thanks,
Tami

[greyhounder]

Well, you see, the GPS emits a sort of protective shield….

😆

It is an interestingly worded statement. Perhaps one of our “founding members” remembers the reason for this.

My only guess is that if a group or government entity wanted to stop geocaching in Wisconsin, the WGA would work to keep geocaching active? Or perhaps I’m off base on this…

Bec

[rogheff]

Mild manners Clark Kent enters a phone booth….

[Cachelovskys]

I can remember a time recently when they were going to start charging for placing geocaches in parks in Brown County…or something like that. And we had a excellent group of individuals attend the meeting and “defend geocaching” within (at least) Brown County.

The meeting time and date was posted in a forum and multiple (myself not included) people went to the county meeting.

Thank You. 😆

[kbraband]

@ecorangers wrote:

“Welcome to the Wisconsin Geocaching Association Website”

“The Wisconsin Geocaching Association (WGA) is a group of geocachers dedicated to promoting and protecting geocaching within the state of Wisconsin. The WGA organizes geocaching events, works with land owners/managers on geocaching policies, educates the public at large about geocaching, and facilitates communication between WGA members.”

Can someone please explain how the WGA and/or it’s members protect geocaching within the state of Wisconsin?

Just curious,
Thanks,
Tami

The second sentence explains it. You’re welcome. 😀

[ecorangers]

The second sentence is more about promoting geocaching….I’m still waiting for examples on “Protecting” geocaching.

When an approver shows his/her disapproval for placing caches along a bike trail 528 feet apart and suggest to the owner they place them further apart, are they “protecting” geocaching within Wisconsin?

When an approver states that “we should avoid” parking lot cache hides…..is that protecting geocaching within Wisconsin?

Thanks!
Tami

[kbraband]

@ecorangers wrote:

The second sentence is more about promoting geocaching….I’m still waiting for examples on “Protecting” geocaching.

When an approver shows his/her disapproval for placing caches along a bike trail 528 feet apart and suggest to the owner they place them further apart, are they “protecting” geocaching within Wisconsin?

When an approver states that “we should avoid” parking lot cache hides…..is that protecting geocaching within Wisconsin?

Thanks!
Tami

To both questions, I would answer yes. Encouraging geocachers to place geocaches that get others to say “Wow” when they find them is a good way to ensure that those finders get excited about their finds and stay enthused about geocaching for the long run.

[Barry Butrymowicz]

All of us as a group can protect geocaching in Wisconsin. by putting out quality caches and not geojunk. also by getting land owners permission or permission to put caches on state lands.

The way we look at it, if it is on private property get permission, remember Walmart parking lots are PRIVATE PROPERTY! Anyone ever asked to put out a LPC??? Just some things to think about.

If all of us in the group do small things to protect geocaching, we can achive great things.

Barry and Valarie of sweetlife

[brkster]

Well put. The future of geocaching is in our hands, as long as we continue to find and hide caches.

[Team Deejay]

Plus, remember that reviewers are NOT acting on behalf of the WGA, but instead on behalf of Groundspeak (owners of geocaching.com, for those few who didn’t know). The WGA has no involvement in geocache placement review.

(and, if you place a cache on private property with permission, which otherwise meets the guidelines, we will publish it. Just get permission from the property owner and make sure the affected neighbors are in on the secret.)

[IceCreamMan]

As an occasional Wisconsin Cacher and lurker on these forums, I’m hesitant to jump in, however, the topic intrigued me. The posted statement gives the general goals of promoting and protecting geocaching, and then goes on to list specific activities that promote geocaching with no elaboration on the activities involved in protecting geocaching.

I’m guessing that part of the reason for that is that “promoting” geocaching is somewhat straight forward. Ask anyone to write a list of activities that promote geocaching and most lists would including most of the activities shown.

However, ask someone to list the activities that “protect” geocaching and you’re not going to get the same answers. In fact, this thread shows that it’s a difficult question to answer and there’s even a little controversy involved.

The only example mentioned that would be broadly accepted is the one about keeping parks open to caching without red tape or fees. I think most cachers would agree that protects caching.

All of the other answers seemed to revolve around wanting to protect a subjective opinion of what caches are good or bad. I know people who wouldn’t be physically able to do most of the caches that would make me go “Wow”, however they love parking lot hides and will do all they can find. Does limiting placements in parking lots “protect” caching for them? I don’t see how.

To me, Protecting Geocaching means, protecting the ability of every cacher to hide and find the caches THEY like (as opposed to just what YOU like), within limited guidelines that allow for the greatest variety while preventing incidences that might put geocaching in a bad light.

This would include working with public land managers to keep areas open, working with Groundspeak to help assure reviewers are applying the guidelines broadly and consistently (and not based on their personal biases, as happens in many areas), and educating cachers on problematic placements and on marking containers.

[EnergySaver]

To me … the best way to PROTECT is to PROMOTE … the better that the public understand what we’re doing, the less likely they are to be bothered by it.

[LightningBugs Mum]

I seem to recall that one of the early reasons for creating the WGA was to have a resource for potentially keeping track of Wisconsin geocaches in case Groundspeak went belly-up. It may seem kind of silly today, but the situation was a bit more tenuous back then. This might be the reason for that particular wording.

[LightningBugs Mum]

Just wanted to add this:

@Team Deejay wrote:

Plus, remember that reviewers are NOT acting on behalf of the WGA, but instead on behalf of Groundspeak (owners of geocaching.com, for those few who didn’t know). The WGA has no involvement in geocache placement review.

Quoted for truth. When you see a reviewer’s name containing “WGA-something”, it means that this person is a WGA board member. However, their duties as a reviewer are completely independent of thier duties leading the WGA. Repeat: the WGA has nothing to do with cache approval.

[kbraband]

@LightningBugs Mum wrote:

Just wanted to add this:

@Team Deejay wrote:

Plus, remember that reviewers are NOT acting on behalf of the WGA, but instead on behalf of Groundspeak (owners of geocaching.com, for those few who didn’t know). The WGA has no involvement in geocache placement review.

Quoted for truth. When you see a reviewer’s name containing “WGA-something”, it means that this person is a WGA board member. However, their duties as a reviewer are completely independent of thier duties leading the WGA. Repeat: the WGA has nothing to do with cache approval.

To shed some historical perspective on this… If you look back at the origins of the WGA and its involvement with Groundspeak, you’ll find that there was indeed a connection between the WGA and the geocache reviewing function. Beginning in 2002 at the suggestion of the WGA, Groundspeak granted the WGA the authority to review geocaches by having two geocache reviewers on our board of directors who review all Wisconsin geocaches submitted to Geocaching.com. This was done so the WGA could assure the Wisconsin DNR and other government entities that the activity of geocaching — at least the part of it that participated and listed caches through geocaching.com — was being managed by a set of rules and that we (the WGA) had the ability to help the DNR in case they wanted a local/regional group they could turn to help enforce specific rules about geocaching on DNR-managed properties. Since that time, a subsequent WGA Board of Directors decided that Wisconsin reviewers do not have to be elected WGA board members, so there is now more of a separation than there used to be between the WGA and the Wisconsin reviewers. But historically, the connection was there. My understanding is that the present Wisconsin reviewers were all endorsed by the WGA Board of Directors before they were recommended to Groundspeak to be reviewers, but I’m not certain of that. Can any current Board members clarify that point?

[Author]

Posts