Geocaching Australia governance issues
-
homedg
- 1550 or more caches found
![1550 or more caches found 1550 or more caches found](./images/ranks/1550star.gif)
- Posts: 798
- Joined: 24 February 06 3:15 pm
- Location: South West Sydney
Post
by homedg » 22 March 10 11:15 pm
richary wrote:I think given the technical limitations of the data we have that is the sensible course, and probably would have led to a different vote from the geocaching community if we had realised that at the start.
I don't know if it is possible or desirable to check the data we have when a cache is listed and if within a reasonable distance from a boundary ask the cacher "is this outside the NP" before permitting listing. If they lie then it is on their heads so to speak and the site has done what it can. That's probably a new ammo can of worms though!
I agree, a whole new can of worms. The vote has been cast and people can make thier own "free and open" decisions.
Now, Let's cache.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
-
Cheesy pigs
- 3000 or more caches found
![3000 or more caches found 3000 or more caches found](./images/ranks/3000star.gif)
- Posts: 1739
- Joined: 02 June 05 6:51 pm
- Location: Kingston
Post
by Cheesy pigs » 22 March 10 11:37 pm
homedg wrote:I agree, a whole new can of worms. The vote has been cast and people can make thier own "free and open" decisions.
Now, Let's cache.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
YAY
-
Richary
- 8000 or more caches found
![8000 or more caches found 8000 or more caches found](./images/ranks/8000star.png)
- Posts: 4189
- Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
- Location: Waitara, Sydney
Post
by Richary » 23 March 10 12:06 am
I agree, let's cache.
Should have worded my previous message about asking the cacher if it was in a National Parks Zone as a warning to them. If they tick yes it is still listed but the warning comes up on the listing and it is up to others as to whether to go find it.
That maintains free and open, but the hider is making the decision rather than the site while giving them a fair warning. Tick yes and you get given a link to why the hide is a bad idea (and illegal). And in some ways absolves the site of the responsibility of the cache placement.
That said, I would still like to see the warning in downloaded GPX files in GSAK, as I very rarely check the online cache page before going to find something. The data is on my hard disk, why check - unless it is a really tricky one that a newer log might shed some light on.
-
The Spindoctors
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: 08 October 03 8:00 pm
- Location: Sydney
-
Contact:
Post
by The Spindoctors » 29 March 10 2:06 pm
caughtatwork wrote:The summary is on this webpage.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/polic ... policy.htm
The summary does NOT accurately reflect the policy in one key point.
Paragraph 9.
Geocaching is not permitted in protected areas managed by the NPWS.
I have put in bold the key word in that sentence.
I would assume that protected vs. managed for NSW P&WS is the same.
Geocaching is not permitted in
protected areas managed by the NPWS.
Justin (Lucy and Roo) and I have sought clarification on this. Justin has already heard back and the answer is as per C@W's assumption.
I suspected the same. If you go to
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkt ... fParks.htm you'll see all 11 categories fall under the Protected Areas heading.
As such, the ban still applies to all NPWS managed areas. The exception is multis whereby the GZ is outside the boundary and the waypoints consist of existing structures (i.e. reading information from information boards, signage, etc.)
-
ruzzelz
- 5500 or more caches found
![5500 or more caches found 5500 or more caches found](./images/ranks/5500star.png)
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 21 January 06 9:53 pm
- Location: A little hill on the bright side of Brizzy
Post
by ruzzelz » 29 March 10 8:38 pm
Same applies to Queensland where the QPWS effectively prevent any form of geocaching (including virtual).
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
-
Big Matt and Shell
- 6500 or more caches found
![6500 or more caches found 6500 or more caches found](./images/ranks/6500star.png)
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
-
Contact:
Post
by Big Matt and Shell » 29 March 10 8:47 pm
ruzzelz wrote:Same applies to Queensland where the QPWS effectively prevent any form of geocaching (including virtual).
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
How do you ban a virtual? Do they stop all tourists from visiting these areas? Sorry folks, no pictures allowed of the Story Bridge...
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
-
ruzzelz
- 5500 or more caches found
![5500 or more caches found 5500 or more caches found](./images/ranks/5500star.png)
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 21 January 06 9:53 pm
- Location: A little hill on the bright side of Brizzy
Post
by ruzzelz » 31 March 10 8:53 pm
Big Matt and Shell wrote:ruzzelz wrote:Same applies to Queensland where the QPWS effectively prevent any form of geocaching (including virtual).
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)
How do you ban a virtual? Do they stop all tourists from visiting these areas? Sorry folks, no pictures allowed of the Story Bridge...
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Valid point but QPWS are regarding geocaching as an activity (like rogaining) and hence placing restrictions on the "activity" of geocaching.
Hopefully the first step is to move to acceptance of the activity and then phase in acceptance of additional aspects of the experience of geocaching.
![Pray [-o<](./images/smilies/eusa_pray.gif)
-
caughtatwork
- Posts: 17039
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
-
Contact:
Post
by caughtatwork » 31 March 10 9:21 pm
From the what's new on GCA thread.
caughtatwork wrote:Geocaching in Banned Zones
In light of the discussion and outcomes of this thread
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 24&t=13679, we have made a small change to the cache page.
If a cache is determined to be in a banned geocaching zone based on the zone data we have available, a warning is output to the cache page and the cache details are initially hidden from view.
You may reveal the cache details by clicking on the link Show Cache Details at the bottom of the warning.
This will reveal the cache details.
While it is not a perfect solution, it does imply that you have read the warning (even if you had to read it just to work out how to show the cache details) and therefore take the accountability upon yourself should you wish to seek the cache.
This is standard javascript code for hide / reveal a hidden <div>, so if you find a bug in this function, please start a new thread highlighting your operating system and browser, including version, so we can debug.
-
geoskid
- 150 or more caches found
![150 or more caches found 150 or more caches found](./images/ranks/150star.gif)
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 31 August 07 5:34 pm
- Location: spreyton
Post
by geoskid » 01 April 10 10:16 pm
They can not prevent a virtual - full stop!! And, why should they!!
A Virtual is not caching,. it is information gatherinng at worst.
I draw the line personally, and it is at virtuals. No matter what happens
anywhere (in any state) geocaching can continue in a meaningfull way via the means of a virtual.
Thoughts?
-
geoskid
- 150 or more caches found
![150 or more caches found 150 or more caches found](./images/ranks/150star.gif)
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 31 August 07 5:34 pm
- Location: spreyton
Post
by geoskid » 01 April 10 10:29 pm
Hi Spindoc - Thanks, havn't read yet, however I think it will read that there are ways to present a virtual that is none of the business of a Parks and Wildlife Service in any State.
-
geoskid
- 150 or more caches found
![150 or more caches found 150 or more caches found](./images/ranks/150star.gif)
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 31 August 07 5:34 pm
- Location: spreyton
Post
by geoskid » 01 April 10 10:53 pm
Have now followed your link, thanks. Look, makes sense, but do you have any experience in herding cats. How is it going to work?
Virtuals can be the way forward, as long as one needs to use their GPS to find info. Virtuals dont need to be 'Claytons Caches'.
-
CraigRat
- 850 or more found!!!
![850 or more found!!! 850 or more found!!!](./images/ranks/850star.gif)
- Posts: 7019
- Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
- Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
- Location: Launceston, TAS
-
Contact:
Post
by CraigRat » 02 April 10 4:19 am
geoskid wrote:
Virtuals can be the way forward, as long as one needs to use their GPS to find info. Virtuals dont need to be 'Claytons Caches'.
Which is why I'm glad we still allow them.
For better or worse, I can see that geocaching is going to get more and more 'virtual' as things progress and the hiding of actual containers is going to get harder and harder as land managers (councils/NPWS and such) gradually implement policies.
I do think gc's banning of virtuals as being a poor move on their behalf. (Locationless caches are another story though. I understand why they spun it out to waymarking).
I'm happy to do a good virt if it's in a decent spot.
-
ruzzelz
- 5500 or more caches found
![5500 or more caches found 5500 or more caches found](./images/ranks/5500star.png)
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 21 January 06 9:53 pm
- Location: A little hill on the bright side of Brizzy
Post
by ruzzelz » 02 April 10 5:35 am
geoskid wrote:They can not prevent a virtual - full stop!! And, why should they!!
A Virtual is not caching,. it is information gatherinng at worst.
I draw the line personally, and it is at virtuals. No matter what happens
anywhere (in any state) geocaching can continue in a meaningfull way via the means of a virtual.
Thoughts?
Sorry to disappoint but in particular the NP laws in each state allow the parks authorities to lock-up areas and if necessary exclude access.
![Speak to the Hand =;](./images/smilies/eusa_hand.gif)
Hence for special restricted areas and scientific areas the geocaching communitity needs to realise we are subject to the same restrictions as every other person in Australia.
If it is a no go zone or one requiring a special access permit, placing a virtual cache in that type of location is NOT responsible geocaching.
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)