More about power trails

There certainly are a few passionate people who don't want to let go of power trail caches. Some of them seem to think this is all about MY decision. I don't see it that way. It's a Groudspeak thing. [Please see the guidelines.] It would be pointless for me to weigh in officially on the arguments that a few geocachers have voiced, because I'm not the one making the rules. Groundspeak has voiced its displeasure and preference about having power trails approved. As a volunteer reviewer, I am required to abide by Groundspeak's guidelines. And when you click the "agree" button on their web site, so are you.

However, I will say that personally [emphasis on PERSONALLY], I don't see why requiring a series of power trail caches to be set up as a multicache takes anything away from the sport. That way, geocachers still have a bunch of new caches to find and new and interesting locations to view. Plus, there's the added benefit that if it's a multicache, the trail isn't "locked up" by one geocacher's power trail because of the 528-ft. spacing guideline. Therefore, the trail is open to cache placement by future geocachers. That leaves room for the growth of our sport instead of an entire stretch of trail being monopolized by one geocacher.

Okoboji 2007

We spent Memorial Day weekend at our annual family reunion on West Lake Okoboji. The weather was good overall. Most of our outdoor time was spent in kayaks, but we also took time to walk over to a nearby geocache called Venice, Iowa by Davy Duck, which we found fairly quickly.

Arggggh! Not another power trail, please

The phenomenon of so-called "power trail" caches began within the past year, and now this invasive cache type has found it's way to Iowa. Power trails are when a geocacher hides caches every 528 feet or slightly more along a trail -- just far enough to meet the .1 mile cache separation requirement. The guidelines don't prohibit power trails, but they do comment on them:

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

We didn't have any power trails in Iowa until a few weeks ago when I approved the LOBRI Trails in Muscatine, after geocachers LOBRI wrote to me to request that their series be approved so they could "draw attention to geocaching" in Muscatine in advance of an upcoming geocaching event and so they could take a local newspaper reporter on a cache hunt. Even though Grounspeak discourages power trails (see the guideline excerpt above) I decided to approve this series. Evidently that power trail or others outside of Iowa inspired other geocachers to create their own power trails. Now several more have been submitted.

Because of what's written in the guidelines, I'm going to begin questioning geocachers who submit power trails -- asking why they can't be set up as multi-caches instead. If there is no good reason, they can expect that their power trail cache will not be approved.

Less-than-helpful hints

I always look at the hints written by cache owners when they submit a new cache. For the most part, geocachers seem to understand the purpose of the hint. However, I do see an occasional less-than-useful hint. For example:
"This is one of my favorite parks."
"Be sure to bring along a piece of metal tied to a string at least 2 feet long."
"Your best approach is from the north."

If I see that a hint doesn't fulfill the intended purpose -- giving geocachers a last resort clue that they can decrypt at ground zero -- before I publish the cache, I think it's due primarily to inexperience. I send them a note with my recommendation for changing their hint and why. In most cases, they seem happy to oblige. They simply haven't thought things through and put themselves in the shoes of people who will be hunting for their cache.

Getting a second opinion

One thing that I stress when writing to or talking with geocachers is that I, as a reviewer, don't make the rules. My role as a volunteer reviewer is to enforce the guidelines that have been put in place by Groundspeak. However, because of the ever-evolving creativity of geocachers, situations often arise that require interpretation to see if they comply with the guidelines or may pose problems or dangers that the guideline writers had not previously thought of. In situations like those, I like to ask my fellow reviewers for their opinions about the cache. Groundspeak has a special online forum for reviewers with a topic called "What do you think of this cache?" There we can post a link to these speical situations and ask if anyone else has encountered this type of cache before. It's a great resource that helps keep all of the reviewers worldwide in touch with each other and consistent in how we review new geocache submissions.

213 new caches in April

I just did a rough count (I could be off by a few) and I reviewed and approved about 213 new caches in Iowa during the month of April. That's a lot! Oh yeah, there were also a ton of notes and emails exchanged about caches, some caches to archive, a CITO event attended, and even a few geocaches that I found myself. While the pace has been fast and furious, it's been fun working with you. I know from reading posts from fellow reviewers who review other regions that Iowa geocachers are, overall, more polite and understanding than some of the geocachers I hear about from other parts of the country and world. So if you're an Iowa geocacher... thanks. Keep up the good attitude and the great caches.

It's spring and the geocaches are in bloom

It was a busy day for geocache hiders in Iowa! Today I reviewed 25 cache listings -- and I'm guessing more may be submitted yet this evening. The warmer weather must be giving people the urge to get out into the great outdoors. Some of the new ones that I approved this evening look especially interesting, including one outside of Ames called Simon & Garfunkel. I graduated from Iowa State but I never knew about this area. It looks like a great place to take a hike.

Cedar Rapids CITO

This past Friday evening I started thinking about how I was going to spend my Saturday. Mary was going to be gone all day to attend a bridal shower for a neice, so that left me to fend for myself. Since there were a number of Cache In, Trash Out (CITO) events listed on the geocaching.com calendar all over the country in honor of Earth Day, I decided that I'd take part in one of them. Then I remembered that I had been invited by AB-n-AP to attend their event in Cedar Rapids -- so I knew my destination. I always like visiting Cedar Rapids because I lived there for seven years back in the '80s and it's where my son was born. It was also great to meet a number of geocachers from that area and discuss geocaching, geocache reviewing, and other topics as we picked up trash. After more than two hours of bending over to pick up bottles, papers, cardboard, fast food containers and even a hub cap, I can still feel the muscles in the backs of my legs. But it was worth it. We got that stretch of parkway along the freeway looking a lot better than it did before. My thanks to AB-n-AP for organizing this, and especially to everyone who came out to help.

Greetings from down south

Mary and I are on Cozumel, but I've been keeping in touch with the geocaching.com review queue, thanks to wifi in the hotel lobby. Technology is pretty damn amazing these days.

Acceptance of additional waypoints feature

Since early 2006, I've been encouraging geocachers to use the "add/edit waypoints" feature found on the edit pages for their caches to enter coordinates for multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches. At first I posted a lot of "reviewer notes" to inform or remind geocachers about this. Recently I don't seem to need to remind geocachers as much because most are already aware of this and doing it on their own. Of course, I can't take all the credit for this (or even most of the credit) because geocaching.com has now made it part of the latest version of the geocaching.com guidelines for hiding a multicache.

The Blizzard

Geocaching activity came to a virtual standstill in many parts of Iowa during the first weekend of March and for days afterward, and understandably so because of the blizzard that hit much of the state. Some amazing stories are being told about week-long power outages in town such as Beaman in the north-central part of the state. Check out more blizzard photos at this Iowa DOT site.

How long to approve a cache?

I just read a couple of posts in the geocaching.com forums. The relatively new geocacher (a "newbie" in geocaching parlance) asked how long it should take to have his new multi-cache approved. He was answered by several posters, but the most complete and accurate answer that I saw so far comes from a geocacher who goes by the handle of WebChimp. Here's what WebChimp wrote:

As far as listing process goes, I know the reviewers want to see each stage (even if there's no container there) listed as a waypoint, with a description of what goes on at that stage. Leave a nice, clear note for the reviewer in the logs, explaining anything that's even slightly unusual. Pretend you didn't write the listing, read over the note for the reviewer, and make sure it makes complete sense.

As far as the reviewing process goes, the previous answers have good advice. Patience is a virtue, especially when waiting for a cache to be reviewed. GC guideleines say to drop your reviewer an email if nothing's happened after 72 hours. That's an okay idea, but just remember that the 72 hour thing is a guideline. Some reviewers have ample free time to get multi or complicated caches reviewed and make a reply to the hider inside 72 hours. Other reviewers have full work loads or family obligations, and assessing a multi or complicated cache may just take longer. In any case, remember that the reviewer is not going to reach an opinion about the cache and not share it with you. Just be patient. The answer will come...

I would suggest if the listing involves code, or some complex method of deriving coordinates, give all that info to your reviewer.

I think the biggest time-consumer in reviewing these caches is trying to decipher what the hider has actually done, and ANYTHING you can tell the reviewer (via a note in the logs) to make it easier to understand and visualize on a map will help them process the listing more quickly.

Also remember that your reviewer is probably reviewing numerous other caches at the same time, and that makes things difficult on his or her end, as well.

Again, just be patient. One really polite email after four or five days is probably all it takes to get a reading on what's going on.

Good luck on your hide, it's a lot of fun to see that FTF log on a new cache.

Happy trails............

WebChimp

That's sage advice, coming from a geocacher who's only been in the game for 14 months, according to his profile.

Cedar Rapids cave

Yesterday I reviewed and listed a new cache in Cedar Rapids that really has me thinking because of what the owner wrote about the location in his description. The cache is called Mosquito Cave and in his description, AB-n-AP says:

After the Civil War, a gang of horse thieves used to run their stolen horses through what is now known as Horsethief Cave. The thieves would enter the cave, located a few miles north of Mosquito Cave, and not emerge until they reached Anamosa - 23 miles away!

I lived in Cedar Rapids for seven years and I never heard about this cave. I wish I would have because I would have loved to explore this. It's hard for me to imagine that horse thieves could fit horses through a labrinth of caves that extended for 23 miles, and it's right there under the Cedar River all the way to Anamosa. If it's true -- and I don't have any reason to doubt AB-n-AP -- that's pretty amazing.

Podcast geocaches

This morning I reviewed a newly submitted geocache that wasn't really a geocache. There was a downloadable wav file which users could listen to on their MP3 players to hear turn-by-turn directions to the final location of the cache container. However, Groundspeak has notified reviewers not to accept podcast geocaches.

Quoting from the guidelines: "GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions."

If you would still like to provide geocachers the option of using your home-made podcast for turn-by-turn directions to get to a cache, you must:

1. Provide the coordinates of the final location on the cache page, or in the case of a puzzle or multi, provide a method to obtain the final coordinates.

AND...

2. Provide a warning on the cache page that says "Downloading files from the internet is not always safe and you download the files at your own risk."

AND...

3. Provide an alternate way such as a printout of the podcast text that you can print from the web page and read along as you go.

I realize that these rules are not posted in the guidelines, but I have been assured they will be posted in the next iteration. Meanwhile, Groundspeak has suggested that we refer geocachers to this clause in the guidelines: "Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice."

A list of Iowa's land policies

I happened to run across the following posting that I sent to geocaching.com some time ago when they asked for a region-by-region response from each of their reviewers. I realize the IGO web site has a more detailed, and probably more up-to-date list by county, but here's a bunch of info on one page. If you see errors here, please let me know.
-----------
Iowa

STATEWIDE

For all Iowa State Parks and other land administered by The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), permission from the local land manager is required. No permit system is in place (that I know of) so geocachers need to state in their submission that they have received permission.

The Nature Conservancy in Iowa protects over thirty parcels of land throughout the state. Many of these sites are also classified as preserves. Requests for placing caches may be directed to Mr. Neal Humke, Land Steward for The Nature Conservancy in Iowa, at PO Box 1411, Muscatine, IA 52761. Please provide a detailed description of the proposed cache location (what trail, distance from trailhead, distance from trail, etc.), a description of the proposed container, and the distance from any features that might be considered threatened were a cache placed too close by. This information is dated 11 January 2004.


CEDAR RAPIDS

The Indian Creek Nature Center wants geocaches okayed by the Land Steward, Jean Wiedenheft. Ms Weidenheft may be reached via the information on this page. The Center is concerned about "... keeping caches away from high erosion areas (steep hills, gullies), and ... wild flower patches...". This information is dated 11 January 2004.

The City of Cedar Rapids Parks Department wants geocaches okayed by the City Parks Director, Dave Kramer. Mr. Kramer may be reached at the City Parks Department office. This information is dated 11 January 2004.

CORALVILLE

At a meeting 23 February 2004, the Coralville Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved a motion to permit Geocaching within city parks with approved locations and guidelines generally following those of the Story County Conservation Board (see below). The minutes of the meeting incorporating the approval may be found at this link. The guidelines and permit application PDF file will be found on the Coralville website.

DES MOINES

This Groundspeak forum posting dated 13 June 2004, advises that permission must be received from park management before hiding any caches in Jester Park.

JOHNSON COUNTY

The Johnson County Conservation Board has issued their Geocache Placement Permit application. This document is in MS Word format, undated.

We have received correspondence dated 11 September 2004 with the following information:
The Macbride Nature Center (located along the Coralville Reservoir near Lake Macbride State Park) is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers but is leased to, and managed by the University of Iowa Division of Recreational Services.
The University does not have an official, written policy regarding geocaching but asks that they be contacted prior to placing any caches. The nature center does have some sensitive areas to protect, and they say that their lease could be jepordized by unauthorized activities.
The contact is:
Wayne Fett
Assoc. Director, Outdoor Trip Programs
Macbride Nature Recreation Area Coord.
Ph. 319-335-9290
wayne-fett a t uiowa d o t edu


STORY COUNTY

The Story County Conservation Board has issued Geocache Placement Site Guidelines and a Geocache Placement Permit application. Both documents are undated and in Microsoft Word format.

VINTON

The City of Vinton Parks and Recreation Department wants a letter or telephone call requesting permission to place caches within Vinton parks. Requests may be sent to Duane Randall, Head of the Parks and Recreation Department, at 7014 East A Street, Vinton, IA 52349, or telephone (319) 472-4164. This information is dated 11 January 2004.

WASHINGTON COUNTY

A geocacher submitted the following excerpt from a letter written to him by Steve Anderson, Director of the Washington County Conservation Board (WCCB) dated 11 July 2003. The excerpt follows:

The Board decided to allow geocaches in our properties provided that our director first approves the site, that they cannot be placed in environmentally sensitive areas, and that they are not allowed in Brinton Timber or Hayes Timber.

Geocachers applying for permission to place a cache on WCCB land may reach Mr. Anderson at the Conservation Education Center. Contact information for the Education Center may be found on the WCCB web page at the above link.

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

The Winnebago County Conservation Board has developed a set of Geocache Placement Site Guidelines and a Geocache Placement Permit application. Our understanding as of the date of submission (29 April 2004) is that no areas have yet been classified as "Category 1" (virtual caches only). The documents are in Microsoft Word format, undated.

WORTH COUNTY

The Worth County Conservation Board has developed a Geocache Registration Form that should be submitted after a cache is physically hidden, but BEFORE it is submitted to geocaching.com. The form may be mailed to Worth County Conservation Board, 503 1st Avenue N, Northwood, Iowa 50459, but it appears the Board will also accept this information over the telephone at (641) 324-1524 (ask for Shane or Dan). Please read the cache placement guidelines on the registration form before placing your cache. Once approved by the Board, make certain your online cache description contains the required information described in the registration form as well. The form is in Microsoft Word format, undated.

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge is off limits to geocaching, as per rules of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Boundaries can be viewed here.

Fake bolts in road signs: Is it vandalism?

Geocacher welch has asked another good question for this blog. Citing a discussion thread in the geocaching.com forums, welch asks:

"...it is vandalism to have seekers take a bolt out of a sign... Like 'if they removed a sign bolt to replace with a fake one then it would be vandalism, but if they filled a hole that was already open it wouldn't be'...
What would be your reply to that thread? How about if the bolt hole theading was stripped out so the bolt could be pulled out (by hand), allowing the sign to swing away, and a cache was hidden underneath?
What about if the bolt was just a hollowed out and magnetized bolt head that onlystuck to a sign so it looked real, but was just 'hanging' there?"

In general, these sections of the guidelines apply to the questions about roadsign bolts:
"Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method." and... "For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non-geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior."

If a real bolt is removed to insert a cache disguised as a fake bolt, this would reduce the structural integrity of the sign's attachment to its mounting, so it would not be an approvable cache, IMHO. But even if a hole already exists in the sign and a fake bolt is inserted, I still don't like it. It's not good to have muggles and law enforcement see geocachers messing around with street signs. However, if the geocache owner makes a point of obtaining permission from the local police chief to place such a cache, and then states that permission in a note to the reviewer or on the cache page, this could result in the cache being approved, provided there aren't other circumstances that also need to be addressed.

What a December!

I don't know why it's happening, but this has been a crazy month for new caches. I have already approved more than 130 new cache listings in Iowa during December, in addition to a number that have been archived, plus lots of contact with geocachers about one thing or another. Maybe it's because we haven't had much snow yet combined with the annual Christmas surge of new GPS units in the hands of newbies. Whatevever the reason, there's been no let up during the past few weeks. I hope you're enjoying new cache finds in your area.

Thoughts about sharks

Please excuse another non-geocache-reviewing post. I've corresponded with a few of my fellow geocachers about our recent dive trip to the Bahamas and our shark dives, so here are a few photos. It was a truly amazing experience. What I learned: Sharks are not evil. They are beautiful creatures and unlike what we landlubbers are led to believe by Hollywood, they don't automatically eat humans whenever they encounter them in the water.

Thanks for the help

If you had a cache approved in Iowa last week, did you notice that the reviewer was Electric Mouse instead of IowaAdmin? My thanks to reviewer Electric Mouse for filling in for me while my wife and I took a week-long vacation away from the Internet and email connections.

Reviewers have several options for handling vacation time. I think most of us choose to continue our reviewing duties while on vacation because of the increasing availability of Internet connections. However, in my most recent case, we were out of the country in a hotel that didn't have Internet in the rooms, so I wrote to Electric Mouse ahead of time to ask for her very capable assistance. Things must have gone smoothly because I didn't have anyone write to say "Boy, am I glad that you're back!"

Just kidding. I didn't really expect that.