[GeoPink]

My sister is getting married that Saturday… I just don’t think she’s that understanding. Besides I already paid for the tux… Maybe Part Tree…

[GeoPink]

This has been done in the past, however…

We’ve pretty much decided to take a hands-off approach to TB’s. It has only added another layer of complexity to running the show that we don’t really need. As was the case at the Campout, If you have TB’s to trade, do so on your own. We will not be providiing anyTB services.

This seemed to work very well in the past and we’ve heard no complaints from campout attendees. Thanks for understanding and Happy Trading!

[GeoPink]

@Jeremy wrote:

I was also going to scope out a spot for cache on page 57 in the next couple weeks. Hopefully there is some public land in that small sliver that can be used to hide a cache… otherwise no one will ever complete the challenge 😥 (or we’d have to exclude this page).

Looks like a great place for an underwater cache….

[GeoPink]

Looks like we were both on top of it… I modified the gc.com page to make it plain and clear that anyone is still welcome, but…

Thanks for pointing out our “closed door”. It was “unlocked” the whole time but certainly wasn’t very inviting to guests.

🙂

[GeoPink]

@Team Deejay wrote:

OK, I assume you want the finals to mystery caches and all stages of multis. Do you need the “Answer to a question” or virtual locations as well?

😆
Please email all answers, puzzle solutions, and mystery waypoints to geopink at wi dash geocaching dot com…
😆

[GeoPink]

@Digital_Dan wrote:

There really won’t be much of a problem here in Wisconsin with caches on DNR land, because very few will go to that much effort to get them approved. So, the end result will be the same, No caches on DNR land. Does it really matter if it comes by way of the DNR saying, “No Caching allowed” or by default “No one placing caches on DNR land”?

🙄

whatever

[GeoPink]

@Digital_Dan wrote:

Any time a governmental agency is involved, it’s rarely a good thing…

I’ll agree with that. Which is why I was thrilled that the WI DNR took a more hands off approach and let us give them notification instead of asking for permission.
@Digital_Dan wrote:

I wish we had never approached the DNR for a Policy in the first place.

See above post by the Tie for results of this approach.
@Digital_Dan wrote:

If they found a particular cache and had a problem with it, they would just remove it, thereby affecting only one cache.

Not quite. If they find a problem with a geocache, they find a problem with geocaching, thereby affecting ALL geocaches. We’ve seen it before… [Ref. MN DNR, Madison]
@Digital_Dan wrote:

Now with their so called Policy, Many more of our caches are affected. I’m sure what you’ll see is that a number of DNR land managers won’t be aware of the Policy, won’t want caches placed on their lands or will just be ambivalent about it and we’ll get responses from them that won’t seem very consistent. The problem then is, that there is no real recourse or for us as cachers, so we’ll just have to live by what they say, whether or not it’s per the policy. Let’s learn from this and NOT approach any more governmental agencies about policies for placing caches.

That is just plain ignorant. Early in the game I might have taken that same stance, and been just as ignorant. The game has grown from a behind the scenes, clandestine activity with very few participants to a worldwide, commonly known family activity. We need to grow with the game or risk the consequences. That is why the WGA took the initiative and put together, with the WI DNR, this “so called” 🙄 policy. It will take diligent effort on the part of both geocachers and land managers to keep lines of communication open and educate each other about our respective concerns and responsibilities. There will be bumps in the road as the policy is implemented, most certainly. The end result may very well be that there are fewer geocaches on state lands, though I doubt it. Regardless of the quantity of caches on these lands, the quality, safety, ecological impact, assuredness, and longevity of those geocaches will be ensured.
@Digital_Dan wrote:

Let’s learn from this and NOT approach any more governmental agencies about policies for placing caches.

Ever find a geocache in Madison? There is a prime example af working with a government agency to get geocaching back after having it taken away. Why was it taken away? One or two geocaches were placed where they shouldn’t have been. Nobody sought permission. Nobody knew they shouldn’t have been there. The government saw a problem and fixed it. All because there was no communication.

I see a real opportunity here. We can take the positive statewide example set here with the WI DNR and take this to our local county, and city agencies as a working example of how to “police” geocaching in their jurisdictions. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is a threat to geocaching. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is what set the fire ablaze in Appleton over some flowers. Governmental ignorance of geocaching is what prohibits Minnesotans from utilizing their own lands for their own type of recreation. Governmental ignorance of geocaching needs to be a thing of the past.

[GeoPink]

@Jeremy wrote:

BOD members who talked to the DNR, did it seem like they would ever require permission for existing caches sometime in the future (I’m guessing not)?

One previous version of the Notification form had asked that ALL caches on state land be placed according to the new policy by Sept 1, 2006; however that no longer appears to be the case. I was intending to bring mine up to policy anyway and think it would be a great idea if we voluntarily took that step. All it takes is a few minutes of researshing who your land manager is and filing the form.

[GeoPink]

@LightningBugs Mum wrote:

That pretty much sums up the opinion of Jeremy Irish as well. A rating system has an inherent problem in that different people like different kinds of caches. Think about the differences of opinion we’ve seen on these kinds of caches: micros, long hikes, puzzles, cemeteries, just to name a few. People who hate them are going to give them low scores, people who love them will do the opposite.

If a geocacher doesn’t like micros, why would they do micros? If I don’t like puzzle caches, I don’t do them? Assuming you couldn’t rate a cache unless you post a find or a no-find; the people that don’t really like that kind of cache wouldn’t be voting up or down anyway. A rating is not a vote on liking a style or type of cache. Its a vote on the quality of the cache itself. Obvisouly bias toward personal caching preference will be present in the ratings; however, this will be the case for all caches being rated– a moot point.
@LightningBugs Mum wrote:

Now think about if there was a ratings system in place and someone set out a mediocre cache. I think it would be a rare person indeed who would take a low rating as merely constructive criticism and not get defensive or offended. That just won’t generate any good will, especially for newbies who would feel judged and have their new-found enthusiasm squashed like a bug.

How exactly do people know when they have placed a mediocre cache? I’m sure I’ve placed mediocre caches, but I really don’t know which one(s) they would be. All of my logs say the same things! A rating system gives new and veteran geocachers a goal to reach when placing a geocache. If their first cache is a real stinker, then maybe they will go out and figure out why people didn’t care for it. If a low rating on their “best ever first cache ever hidden even though I’ve never found one” is enough to push away a newcomer, they would more than likely be easily pushed away by something else eventually anyway. Maybe they would think twice before hiding that first cache and not embarass themselves that way.
@LightningBugs Mum wrote:

We just need to continue setting a good example by placing quality caches and letting the cream rise to the top through the methods mentioned before.

There isn’t enough cream rising to even recognize it as such. Even our 135 Honorable Mentions and 51 past winners comes to roughly 5% of the caches placed in the state.

I want to spend my precious free time with my family finding quality geocaches, not crap. A rating system is only one more piece of information I can use to help me plan my day to avoid the cache types I don’t care to do and to find the cache quailty I’m look for. I agree that we do need to keep using the methods that are currently in place to recognize the best of the best. I just believe that we need to do more.

$.02

[GeoPink]

Those are great examples…
of geocaches placed by people who know what the Wow factor is and what geocaching used to be about.

None of those caches were placed in the last 2 1/2 years.

Of course newbies had to place caches, the game had to start somewhere. But now that we’re nearing geocache saturation in some areas, we all need to consider our hides carefully and be sure the quality is worth a “GC” number.

A geocache rating system is the answer to crappy caches.

[GeoPink]

With the resounding success of the badger, I nominate greyhounder to draw some up for you! 😛

[GeoPink]

While not “committing” to it; I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t keep providing laminated nametags. I believe this was the intent. For now we may just hand them out at events and work on something for the future.

@jthorson wrote:

The people in the sauna were really impressed.

Clipped to your chest hair, I’m sure. 😛

[GeoPink]

Email and information sent.

Thanks for volunteering!

[GeoPink]

Info forwarded. Thanks for the help!

[GeoPink]

GeoPink was gone over the weekend. Sorry.

Unfortunately, I’ve been told that they will no longer be needing any help.
❓
Whatever.

[Author]

Posts