IGO's system to recommend caches for archiving

Back in the December, bucknuts (Dale), a member of the Iowa Geoachers Organization (IGO) board asked me my thoughts about working with IGO to get caches archived that may have passed their useful lives because the owners are no longer maintaining them. We agreed to give it a try. The IGO system for calling such caches to my attention has been in place for about a month. So far it's been working well, although there has been some questions and discussions about it among Iowa geocachers. To shed more light on the system, I'm posting (with permission) an email I received from Rlowtek (John), who raised valid concerns about the IGO system, followed by my response.

Ken, 

I have exchanged messages with the President of IGO over my concerns with the new IGO cache “Tagging” process.  Below I have provided my thoughts and would like to know your opinion and how in practice you use this process.

I believe this will not enhance geocaching (to the contrary) and that a proper, open method already exists to accomplish the desired result. In effect, this creates two parallel systems. Publicly, you, the administrator or other Groundspeak volunteer, warns the owner and they generally have 30 days.  The open system, governed by geocaching.com/Groundspeak, provides if someone publicly abuses the “Needs Maintenance” or “Needs Archived” logging,  the system will be self-correcting.  However, the underground, anonymous system, is not self-correcting and is without benefit of public exposure to the point of not requiring the "tagger" to have personally posted a "Needs Archived" log. Further, it appears that archiving is instantaneous.

While I share everyone’s frustration with caches that are not maintained, I believe this “cure” is worse than the disease. It will result in accusations, retaliations and misunderstandings. If one is concerned about caches needing justified attention – use the “Needs Maintenance” or “Needs Archived” logs. The IGO tagging will be influenced by individual personal bias and opinions of what geocaching is supposed to be – bias that we all carry. Even with the purest of intentions, hard feelings will be the result. 

I believe we have enough squabbles and misunderstandings in the caching community. We simply do not need more fuel for the fire. While at times we all feel the need to be the geo-police, it is ill-advised to give in to the temptation. I further submit there is a better system already in place that is reasonably impartial and is certainly in the open.

RLowtek/John

My response:

John,
    Thanks for your feedback.
    A few responses...
    First of all, archiving a cache is not a death sentence for a cache.
It's simply another method to take it off the books until the owner decides to do something about the DNFs, Needs Maintenance, or SBA logs. If, after archiving, the owner truly wants to keep the cache going, he or she needs to be prompt about getting it fixed before another cache takes its place. In most cases it can be brought back to life with a simple email to me explaining that it has been maintained and is ready to be unarchived.
    Second, I agree with you that there is already a system in place for dealing with caches that need attention. I don't view the IGO tagging process as a replacement for the geocaching.com system of logs. Rather, it's a useful supplement to that system because it gives the elected organization leaders a way to notify me about caches they feel need to be maintained. I view it as a useful aid to help me monitor caches that may be in need of TLC.
    Regarding whether there was a Needs Archived log on a cache before it is archived, I agreed that there should be.  In fact, I pointed this out to the IGO board -- requesting that they not forward to me requests for archiving unless there has been a SBA log posted on it for a reasonable amount of time -- say two weeks -- without a response from the cache owner.
    I hope this clears up the situation and the current interaction I have with IGO about its tagging system and how I respond to it.

Ken
IowaAdmin
volunteer reviewer

Remember locationless caches? They're still no longer allowed.

Here's email I received today, followed by my response. (Name withheld)

Is there any way that you would publish a mystery/puzzle cache without there being an actual container? The whole point would be to get pictures of Cachers from around the world without them having to travel to the actual cache. The one that I want to put out would be to get people to take a picture with there favorite rock or rock formation, and post it in there log, and then it would count as a find.  So it would be sort of like a virtual or locationless earth cache, but it would be posted as a mystery cache.
Hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks for your email. Sorry to say that this type of cache cannot be published on geocaching.com. There has to be a physical cache for people to find and a log for them to sign, as per the guidelines. I'm not sure how
long you have been geocaching, but a few years ago there was a category of geocaches called "locationless", which the cache you describe would fit into. The cache owner would stipulate what the requirement was to log a find: see a yellow Jeep, find a Kent Feed sign, etc., and then post the coordinates where you saw it. Those cache types are no longer allowed to be listed on geocaching.com.

Time to catch up on SBAs

To those of you who have posted SBA (Should Be Archived) logs lately, help is on the way. (Actually, to be precise, the log type is now called "Needs Archived") Expect to see action within the next few days to address many of those inactive disabled caches across the state. Owners of caches that may be in need of maintenance can expect to receive a note from fellow reviewer Nomex, who has graciously agreed to lend me a hand with this task.

A cold weekend in Iowa

We made it to Cherokee this past weekend and enjoyed a nice time with many of our relatives. However, we didn't do any geocaching -- it was just too darn cold and there was too much snow on the ground to spend time rooting around for geocaches. Friday night and early Saturday it got down to -24F. As we were driving home Saturday afternoon it was still only -12F. Just after 4 p.m. Saturday as we were driving on Hwy 20, we came upon the scene of a single car accident. A car had left the 4-lane roadway and rolled over several times in the median. It looked like no one could have survived, but I read online that there were three people in the car and they all survived. We had stopped for gas just a mile or two before arriving at the accident scene and I saw a state trooper whiz by while I was stopped at the gas station. It made me think what might have happened to us if we would not have stopped for gas and had been near the other car when it blew a tire. It's disheartening to see the chances some people take when they're driving without ever thinking about the consequences to themselves, their passengers or people in other vehicles.

To Grandma's house we go

We were hoping to make the drive to Grandma's house in Cherokee for Christmas but the snowstorm forced us to change our plans. The new plan is to go to Cherokee this weekend. Maybe we'll be able to find some Tonedog52 or Wonder Boy caches if we have time between family activities.

A nice Christmas thank-you

Here's an e-mail I received a few minutes ago. It's the nice notes and comments from geocachers I meet in person that make it all worthwhile.

We just wanted to thank you for all the time and effort you give so that we can put out and hunt caches. It is amazing how many you have approved this past year. We just started geocaching in June and are having such fun as a family. We appreciate all you do and we know we couldn't do it with out you. THANK YOU!
Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Who's not getting my vote for cachers of the month

File this one under the category of "Ya Think?"
Here's the cache they were going for: New Phila Ballfields in Ohio.
And here's the result, a story in their local newspaper:
Headline: Shortcut may cost geocachers

The DARPA balloon project

In case you haven't been following what's going on at Groundspeak today: http://www.10balloonies.com/  Looks like they're closing in on all 10 balloons, thanks to the nationwide network of geocachers.

Peak placement season seems to be over

It was a busy summer for new geocache placements in Iowa. Now that the leaves are nearly all down and the temperatures have dipped, the pace has definitely slowed, which it does every year about this time. Instead of opening my browser and seeing a queue of 20 to 40 new caches on weekend mornings, this morning there were only four... so far. However, if this year follows form, there will be a mini-spike of new caches just after the holidays when new GPSRs are doled out as Christmas gifts. By the way, my wife was at Garmin headquarters near Kansas City this past week (on business) and mentioned to them that her husband is a geocacher. They told her I should stop in sometime and meet with their geocaching team. Evidently Garmin has a designated team assigned to the geocaching market, which only makes sense considering how many GPS units must get purchased every year primarily for geocaching.

"Team" finds or "ghost" logs? What do you think?

This week two different cache owners wrote to me to ask my advice/opinion about how to respond when a geocacher posts a "find" on their cache page but did not sign the log. The first situation (messages are posted below with permission from the cache owner; names changed to protect identities) involves members of a geocaching "team" who all log a find even though only one of them is present at the cache. Here's the message I received:

Hello Ken,
You have been a wealth of information to me lately and because of that, I have a semi-hypothetical question for a real-life situation and how our geocaching guidelines apply to it....

Let's say you and I are good geocaching friends and we call ourselves "GeoPair". So maybe I go out and make a find today (by myself) and sign the log as "GeoPair". I let you know I found it, and BOTH OF US log a find. But since GeoPair is just a pseudonym for our partnership, we have to log our find individually using our separate usernames on geocaching.com. The owner of the cache does a log check and finds GeoPair signed the log, but you and I both posted finds. Perhaps it is well known that you and I together are "GeoPair", perhaps not. The general guideline is once you've signed the physical log, you can post the find on the internet. In this situation is it allowable for both of us to log a find? Is it acceptable (without repercussion) for the owner to delete both of our logs (due to the "bogus" nature of the logs)?

I ask these questions because I am aware of a situation that exactly mirrors my description of this hypothetical situation. What are the exact "rules" that apply here? If I had made this "find" today I could have just as easily signed my name and "forged" your name and the owner probably wouldn't/couldn't know the difference. I assure you, I am NOT doing this. I am aware of another geocacher that IS doing this (signing a pseudonym and/or signing for others). I am just looking for clarification of our geocaching guidelines and options/remedies for a situation such as this. I am relatively new to geocaching, but I believe in and insist on maintaining the integrity of this sport.

I would appreciate your insight and opinion regarding this matter. Thank you!

And here's my response...

I appreciate your efforts to protect the integrity of geocaching, but the geocaching logs are sometimes a mysterious place where one person's viewpoint conflicts with the next person's. As a volunteer reviewer, I have been instructed time and time again that reviewers are not the log police, so we shouldn't be editing or deleting logs on caches (other than those we own) unless a log violates terms of agreement that all geocachers "signed" when they created their account on geocaching.com.

Note: The rest of this email is my personal opinion and not necessarily that of geocaching.com. My personal opinion -- and I believe the widespread opinion of many long-time geocachers -- is that if you are not physically present for a find, you shouldn't claim it as a find.

In additon to my IowaAdmin account (which I rarely use to log finds), I have an account that I use when I cache hunt on my own and a third account that my wife and I use when we geocache together. Having said that, I know of many couples (usually husband and wife) who have just one account and log all their finds there regardless of whether they were both present. If a single account is shared by a nuclear family, there's seems to be widespread agreement among geocachers that it's OK for family members to log a find even if a spouse or kids were not present. To each his/her own.

Regarding the situation you describe, the cache owner IS the cache police for his/her own cache. I believe the cache owner is justified in deleting any logs he/she truly feels are not legitimate. Like any situation where there may be a difference of opinion, all actions by the cache owner should be done with tactful courtesy and not out of spite or nastiness. The cache owner should clearly explain why he or she is taking the action, such as deleting a log, and give the geocacher a chance to respond or revise the log. If the geocacher doesn't like the outcome, he/she can choose not to search for any more caches owned by that particular cache owner. But there's no need for public shouting matches about it. Just accept it and move on.

I hope this helps.

So what do you think?

Stats a lot of caches!

It's time once again for some stats about geocaches.

• I reviewed 3,053 new geocaches during the past year -- roughly from September 2008 through August 2009. All of these were in Iowa. That comes to an average of 8.36 caches reviewed per day.
• Worldwide, 391,742 new geocaches were reviewed during the past year.
• In the United States, 193,054 new geocaches were reviewed during the past year.
• Iowa now has 7,949 active geocaches (including event caches but not including EarthCaches) listed on geocaching.com.
• Worldwide, there are now 912,967 active geocaches.

What's your guess for the exact date that we'll hit 1 million?

Cemetery caches - what's the policy?

If you're a regular reader of the forums at geocaching.com, you may have noticed discussion about an update to the guidelines that mentions caches hidden in cemeteries. The discussion from Groundspeak is summarized in this posting from MissJenn. In a nutshell, the guidelines now include cemeteries as areas where geocaches might not be allowed. Quoting from the guidelines: "Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites or cemeteries)." (Boldface added by me.) MissJenn's posting says, in part, "This is why we have local experts (your reviewers) who know the deal in their respective territories. They know the right thing to do. They have been doing that and they’ll continue to do the same."

My standard operating procedure for cemetery caches remains what it has been for several years. When a cache is submitted that is inside a cemetery in Iowa, I temporarily disable the cache and send this note to the cache owner:

"This cache appears to be in a cemetery. Because of complaints about geocachers
playing 'games' in cemeteries across the country, I need to make sure you
received permission from the cemetery owners or caretaker before this is listed.
Also, the cache needs to be placed away from graves so it doesn't upset mourners
who may accidentally find it or see geocachers in the cemetary. Please reply by
posting in a reviewer note the name and contact information of the person who
granted permission for this cache and then re-enable the cache so it reappears
in my review queue. If you don't plan to seek permission, please archive
the listing and remove the cache. Thanks for your understanding."

Therefore, if you are planning to place a cache in a cemetery in Iowa, you'll need to seek permission. Once you receive permission, please be sure to include that information somewhere on the cache page, either in a reviewer note or in the short or long description.

Occasionally, a cache owner will submit a new geocache and state that it is just outside of the cemetery. It happened just this morning. In those cases, I have not been asking the cache owner to seek permission. However, if the cache is hidden on the gate, fence or wall that surrounds a cemetery, I have been asking them to seek permission, because gates, fences and walls are part of the cemetery and owned/maintained by the cemetery owner/groundskeeper.

Submitting caches in advance for an event

Here's a recent question that has been asked of me at different times by different geocachers.

Ken,
Just a question regarding our upcoming event. For last years event,
you allowed us to submit caches "pre-approval" before the event and then
published them a few days after the event. We are already scoping out
places for this year's event and were hoping to do the same thing. A few
of the containers we make for a specific spot. How much extra work
is it for you to pre-approve these caches and then sit on them? Do you have a separate database of caches that have been approved
but are not yet published? As always, thanks for your time.

So that more geocachers can understand how I like to handle these situations, here's my answer. In general it's fine to submit caches for pre-approval that you don't want published until a specific date. I'll look them over and let you know if they appear to comply with all the guidelines, including the 528ft. proximity guideline. Rather than me setting some type of timer on them for publication on a specific date (a feature which is not available to me but which would be nice to have), I'll disable them and wait for you to re-enable them when you're ready for publication. That way they will to reappear in my review queue.

It's fine to submit caches several weeks in advance. Even a couple of months is OK if you're planning to submit a large number of them. However, it wouldn't be fair to other geocachers to let you submit geocaches more than a few months in advance, because that would be abusing the privilege of "reserving" geocaching locations.

Get out there and get 'em

I was at Okoboji at a family gathering this past weekend, so even though I logged on to approve a few caches a couple of times overe the weekend, I didn't want to spend much time reviewing caches while I was with the family. So, I just finished publishing about 50 new geocaches this evening -- catching up on those that were submitted over the weekend.Those are in addition to the 90 or so I published after last weekend. If you don't have a new geocache near you... well, maybe you haven't checked geocaching.com lately. :-) Here's a little video of fun on the water while at Okoboji...

Cherokee's Welcome Spring event

I had a great time in Cherokee last weekend attending the "Welcome Spring" geocaching event hosted by Tonedog52 and Wonderboy. The caches placed for the event that I found were worthy of standing on their own. By that I mean the organizers did a very nice job of hiding quality caches. Some of the parks where the geocaches were placed did not exist when I lived in Cherokee back in the late 1960s to mid 1970s. It was great to meet so many geocachers that I have corresponded with, and to renew a few aquaintences as well. Lots of people came up to me with questions about specific types of cache hides or specific caches that they were thinking about hiding, so it was enjoyable for me to offer guidance and encouragement. I especially enjoyed the Sunday morning paddle trip down the Little Sioux River as we found geocaches along the way that Tonedog52 and Wonderboy had placed for the river event. I wish every event included a paddling-while-caching aspect to it. Lots of fun, despite the fact that a few paddlers managed to dunk themselves that morning.

Power Trails back in the discussion

Two years ago I wrote about power trails and explained the reasons behind Groundspeak's guidelines and restrictions against placing lots of caches in a row along a trail. That posting led to a number of excellent comments on this site. This spring some additional geocaches were submitted that I felt crossed the sometimes grey line into what constitutes a power trail -- a series of caches along the new Old Creamery Trail near Vinton and a series (not yet published) along the Little Sioux River near Cherokee. In both cases I have corresponded with the cache owners and we have had polite and constructive dialog to get as many as the caches approved as possible while complying with the intent of the power trail guideline. As I said two years ago, power trails are a difficult area of the guidelines for me as a reviewer to interpret and enforce. But if you read what I wrote back in June 2007 about them, and what I wrote in the subsequent comment discussion, it gives you a pretty good insight into what the guidelines are asking -- at least my interpretation of those guidelines.

No more ALR caches

In case you haven't heard the news, the geocaching.com guidelines have been updated and ALR (Additional Listing Requirement) caches have been banned/stricken/outlawed/disallowed... whatever word you prefer. Here's the new guideline text:

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

• Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
• Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
• Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Compared to some parts of the U.S. and the world, I think this change won't affect Iowa geocachers that much because I've seen very few ALR caches submitted in Iowa. Many ALRs had nothing to do with geocaching, such as the requirement to draw a picture, stand on your head, step under a waterfall, sing a silly song, etc.

What do you think? Do you (did you) love ALRs and think this is a terrible idea? Or did you hate them and think it's about time they were written out of the guidelines?

Yesterday's blog post

For those of you who may still be scratching their heads about my blog post yesterday describing changes to the guidelines... think about the date on which it was posted. Yes, it was an April Fool's joke. No, there are no such plans in the works.

But wouldn't it be nice?

My thanks to General Disarray, who reviews caches for Oklahoma, for letting me borrow the idea. I understand Heartland Cacher, who reviews for Nebraska, also played this prank in the Cornhusker state.

New guidelines take effect today

As some of you may have heard, there are modifications in the works for Geocaching. I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of some of the changes to take effect starting today. These changes are being implemented in order to take geocaching back to its roots.

Cache Size: Cache containers must now be of the one quart size or larger. No “nanos”, matchstick containers, or film canisters will be published.

Cache Content: All caches must contain a logbook (not log sheet) and items for trade. Fast food toys will be added to the list of items disallowed inside caches.

Permissions: As all land is owned by someone, all cache owners must obtain permission from the landowner in writing and fax or email this to me. This will be kept on file for the duration of the caches existence. *fax number to be added to my profile*

New Saturation Guidelines: The .1 mile rule still applies to caches placed within public parks. There is a new guideline for “linear” trails (sometimes referred to as “power” trails). This guideline states that caches must be placed no closer than 3-4 miles apart and must be in a location that will “wow” your fellow cachers.

Logging Guidelines: 1. Physical logbook: your physical log must contain more than just a signature. 2. Online Log: Acronyms are no longer an acceptable way to log online. You must write a minimum of three sentences detailing your experience. Logs containing “TFTC”, “TFTH”, “SL”, etc will be deleted.

As more information becomes available to me I will make it available to you via this site and my profile. Let’s continue to make Iowa the best state to geocache in.

Cherokee's "Welcome Spring" Event

When I saw that Tonedog52 and Wonderboy are hosting an event in Cherokee the weekend of May 16, I put it on my calendar but I seriously didn't think I would be able to make it there because we'll traveling to Okoboji the following weekend. Well, after thinking about it for awhile I decided what the heck, it's going to be right in my old 'hood (I went to high school in Cherokee) and my mom lives there. So... I have made plans to be there. It should be fun to explore some of the newer parks that were not yet public areas when I lived there. If you're planning to attend this event, I'll see you there.