MnGCA

[Pear Head]

[King Boreas]

HEH

I know what I'm trying to say, but it never comes out right. Sometimes sleep is a good thing.

pleasse disregard my previous babble. maybe i learned this time.

[celticwulf]

[Posen]

Oh! Oh! Ask me! Ask me!...um, or not...

Guess overkill is debatable, and this ain't the place to do it.

However, as an abuser of the overkill ruling, I can see some sportsmanship in leaving a few spots for others in a park (any park). We have new cachers joining all the time...and we need to leave room for their hides...yet our old hides, such as the ones already in the three-rivers parks, stay there...eventually, in most parks, the Posen grid will need to be used. We hide many and remove few...

We are a young organization, and if you did a graph of cachers joining/caches hidden, I'm sure you'd see a sharp increase that will eventually grid out any metro area...so in Three Rivers Park, how many is overkill? I usually let my approver tell me when to stop, but I'm very glad the park board is not the one telling when to stop.

Thanks to the MnGCA Board for this huge victory.

[Paklid]

Here's a bump to a three year dormant thread.

I just submitted a couple caches to Three Rivers for consideration and talked for awhile with Marlene (who administers the geocaching permits for Three Rivers). My caches probably will not be allowed to stay since I forgot they consider Bush Lake and Hyland lake to be one park and we've got a BUNCH of caches around Bush.

Anyway, Marlene asked me something I couldn't answer regarding reducing the number of times she needs to duplicate her work effort (and disappoint a cacher on a submission). Seems that during the course of normal cache turnover (yes, some people actually archive and remove old caches to make room for others to enjoy hiding) the final step of notifying Marlene that a cache is now gone is sometimes being forgotten. As a result, another cacher might - and has on several occasions - submitted a new cache placement request for her that is too close to the archived cache location (which she still has recorded as being active since she was not notified).

My guess is that the bulk of cachers that do archive take the final step and notify Marlene, but enough don't that she's taking the time to review only to see that the cache won't be allowed and then she hears from the submitter that there is an archived cache that needs to be removed from her books - so she does that and then does another review of the submission.

So she asked for help in identifying a strategy to reduce the chances that this set of circumstances happens as we go forward.

Any suggestions?
_________________
-Paklid

[bflentje]

Have her log into geocaching.com and pull up a known cache on the geocaching.com On Google map feature. She'll be able to see all of the surrounding boxes.

[Mrs. Mizzou]

We just had this happen with caches we placed. There were archived caches in Elm Creek that she still has on her active list. The Mr. and I discussed this (OK, I talked and he pretended to listen) and raised the possibility of just listing the active caches on any future submissions. I know it's more work, but I walked 4 miles and don't want to have to go out and pick up my containers!

[spinowner]

We had a discussion about this type of thing on another thread recently. Maybe Three Rivers could enroll as a basic member (so there'd be no charge) and watchlist the caches in their parks so they'd know about archival (and other activity).
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!

[speedysk1]

I'll contact Marlene and get a thread started with her. I want to discuss the geocaching policy as a whole, so this is the opportune time.
_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

[Jam3s]

[spinowner]

[NeverSummer]

[NeverSummer]

[speedysk1]

[NeverSummer]