Grey Areas - GCA No Go Zones.

[geoskid]

Obviously the majority of pollsters Don't want GCA to list Caches that are in explicitly banned areas. This is the area to let off steam.
However, there is an expectation to have thought about your views - like for more than 5 mins.
For instance , all of my hides are with GCA, I am a Bushwalking Hider/Finder. I have struggled with my vote on GCA listings, mainly because illegal is illegal, and I would like to think my vote would'nt change if TPWS outright banned geocaching in our NP, but I am human and know I would be peed off if the same happened here. So - there are State associations doing their best to bring about change.
Questions:
Is it possible for Geocachers to abide by rules?
If so, whos rules?
Who says we cant put a cache there anyway?
Why do they say we cant put a cache there?
@#%^'em, I will put one there anyway!
Let off steam by all means, but the purpose is to condense a way forward - preferably without overthrowing the Public Service.

[SecretSquirrel-BJC]

Damn traffic cameras... who said we can't speed.. who says they have to be put there...

Is it possible for citizens to voluntarily abide by the speed limit?

Viva la revolution

[SecretSquirrel-BJC]

seriously though it is totally sad about geocaching and national parks

[Chwiliwr]

Is it possible for citizens to voluntarily abide by the speed limit?

Viva la revolution

Heaven help us if citizens actually started to abide by the speed limits as there would be a large number of new or raised taxes to make up for the lost revenue.
Oh! I forgot it's not about the revenue is it.

[Big Matt and Shell]

seriously though it is totally sad about geocaching and national parks

Imagine what ACT caching would look like if TAMS changed their stance...

[kennythe1st]

I admit to ambivalence on the issue of GA No Go zones. But one in particular has been in my thoughts for some weeks as I have passed near it a few times. It is in a motorway zone where parking on the roadside is illegal except in emergency.

The actual illegality isn't my worry so much as that parking on the roadside of a motorway is downright dangerous. And there are a number of incidents in Victoria alone to prove that.

imo we shouldn't condone listings where a cache can, by evidence, be shown to endanger the lives/wellbeing of both cachers and non-cachers.

Kenny

[Richary]

I agree with that one Kenny. Now obviously this wouldn't be shown by any preset no-go zones in GCA. But as GCA is putting in place a system of reviewers for dead caches where the original hider has lost interest, you could place a Needs Archived on it and then it would be reviewed.

It will obviously be up to the elected Senate to decide if these sort of available but dangerous and perhaps stupid hides should remain listed. At the same time something dangerous by itself isn't necessarily cause for archiving as long as the dangers are explained in the listing (e.g. rock climbing etc).

Something where you can be wiped out by a passing truck or cause danger to others by parking there would IMHO be a no-no, and I would place it on my ignore list.

[Bewilderbeest]

imo we shouldn't condone listings where a cache can, by evidence, be shown to endanger the lives/wellbeing of both cachers and non-cachers.

Kenny

As this cant be done using pre-defined zones, it would require implementing a process to review caches submitted for publication, to ensure they are in a suitable location.

Do we want to move to having volunteer reviewers in the way GC does?

[Big Matt and Shell]

Do we want to move to having volunteer reviewers in the way GC does?

Please No!

[Cheesy pigs]

I dont think so either

[Big Matt and Shell]

It will obviously be up to the elected Senate to decide if these sort of available but dangerous and perhaps stupid hides should remain listed. At the same time something dangerous by itself isn't necessarily cause for archiving as long as the dangers are explained in the listing (e.g. rock climbing etc).

Shouldn't this be left up to the finder to make a decision based on his/her capabilities? I mean what is considered a no go for you is different to me and may be different to an experience climber like Altair or tronador.

Something where you can be wiped out by a passing truck or cause danger to others by parking there would IMHO be a no-no, and I would place it on my ignore list.

To me this is the best form of management, no one is forcing you to find these caches, and if your not comfortable, give it a miss and walk away. Ignore it.

Caches that fall into a bucket of obviously breaking the law (Obvious trespass on land or requiring a cherry picker in a public park) treat them like you would either a GC or GCA cache, post a note, or a needs maintenance or a SBA note.

Lets get back to the black and white..

[pjamesk]

I have struggled with my vote on GCA listings, mainly because illegal is illegal, and I would like to think my vote would'nt change if TPWS outright banned geocaching in our NP, but I am human and know I would be peed off if the same happened here. So - there are State associations doing their best to bring about change.

One would like to think that State associations are doing there best. Not always to bring about change. Here in Tas it would be to keep it the way it is. Change would mean not to be able to place a cache in a NP.
Unless you have been told otherwise

Is it possible for Geocachers to abide by rules?

If people don't it refects on all geocachers and makes it harder to bring about change. But it is up to the individual, much the same as speeding.

If so, whos rules?

Who is the land owner/manager?

Who says we cant put a cache there anyway?

Well it’s up to you, but if the land manager has a GCA/GC account they might find out and remove it. Bit like a game of cat and mouse.

From this I find myself asking two questions.

1. If TPWS don't know much about caching and they are asked if they allow it or not, could this stir up a hornets nest and are we prepared for their response if it is not in our favour.

2. If we stand by and do nothing (head in the sand) and it gets banned then what?

[Richary]

Shouldn't this be left up to the finder to make a decision based on his/her capabilities? I mean what is considered a no go for you is different to me and may be different to an experience climber like Altair or tronador.

I fully agree, I can't do scuba caches for example, and as long as the dangers are explained adequately in the cache description I don't have any problems.

The specific example given sounds more like you might get wiped out through no fault of your own by having to park in a dangerous and illegal spot. The only judgement that comes into it is whether you want to stop and get out of the car. Not your own physical abilities and experience.

I'm not proposing a system of GC style reviewers as someone suggested, but the reviewers that are being set up to clean up abandoned and missing caches could also (if the Senate decides) look at ones that are still there but getting SBA logs for this sort of reason.

[Big Matt and Shell]

I'm not proposing a system of GC style reviewers as someone suggested, but the reviewers that are being set up to clean up abandoned and missing caches could also (if the Senate decides) look at ones that are still there but getting SBA logs for this sort of reason.

Mr Rat or C@W, what happens to these caches currently (or when the person(s) described in this post in in place)?

[caughtatwork]

Current policy is to archive cache listings where the needs archived log indicates a missing cache container and it has been out of action for a while.

Caches that are in place are logged with an Administrative Review log type indicating that a review has taken place and that there is no action needed.

We are not the cache police, but we do like to keep the database tidy to avoid frustration of people with unmaintained / missing caches in their area.