| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
timewellspent
Geocacher
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 659
Location: Chanhassen, MN
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| knowschad wrote: |
| Brad, speedysk1, and whoever else has been trying so hard to work with these folks, do they realize that when a cache that has been registered with them is archived at geocaching.com, that their database will be obsolete? And that, when the next guy comes along and places a cache nearby, and there are problems with that cache, that they may contact the guy that once had an archived cache nearby? |
If they have their system down, the 2nd guy wouldn't receive a permit based on it being to close to another cache (the cache that was archived). This happens in EP and I am sure 3 Rivers as well. You then get to do the extra work explaining that that cache is no longer there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
If they have their system down, they would set up watches (at least on Archived logs) on all caches that get registered and would have somebody keeping tabs on the logs and keeping their database up to date. If. Big IF.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timewellspent
Geocacher
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 659
Location: Chanhassen, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| knowschad wrote: |
| If they have their system down, they would set up watches (at least on Archived logs) on all caches that get registered and would have somebody keeping tabs on the logs and keeping their database up to date. If. Big IF. |
Obviously EP Doesn't have it down as I have run into the issue. I have also run into the issue of receiving a permit from the city and the city giving another permit to a different cacher for a spot about 40 feet from my approved spot. I figured since I was approved, they wouldn't approve another spot within 528 feet of mine so I didn't place it right away. I guess I was wrong.
Another reason why having the city review and Groundspeak review is a total waste of time and money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yep. And when I contacted the parks department to clarify the ONE YEAR limit thing a couple weeks back, I suggested carefully to them that they may experience issues just like this. I was more or less told too bad. That's also when I was told to have fun hiking while picking up my caches I wasn't sure I wanted to register twice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd hardly expect a county web developer to know how to figure the distance between two sets of coordinates. I mean, that might require a Google search, for cryin' out loud!
I'm sure you Eden Prairie folks and others that have had to register your caches with government agencies for some time now are probably tempted to think of us as a bunch of whiney babies... so thanks for putting up with us!
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speedysk1
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 1991
Location: Mound MN
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW, I don't think they are checking distances or status of caches. Bart nailed it with a previous post...Dak Co could not care any less. If I were a tax paying citizen of the county, I might consider contacting someone from the parks department. 
Edited due to PH point out my grammatical error. 
_________________
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Last edited by speedysk1 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2348
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Dak Co could really care less. |
And I could care less that I have an illegal cache in Lebanon Hills, and several on the Big River Regional Trail. Banning that Trail makes absolutely no sense to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| King Boreas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Dak Co could really care less. |
And I could care less that I have an illegal cache in Lebanon Hills, and several on the Big River Regional Trail. Banning that Trail makes absolutely no sense to me. |
Could not care less? 
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmanogoldfish
Geocacher
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Be thankful that you are not charged a User Fee for registering the caches.
Their policy should have a requirement that Dakota County Park and Recreation be notified if and when a cache is removed or modified.
Most of the features identified to better manage the status of caches are not available on all cache or letterbox listing services. They would have to build unique applications to utilize features of each of these service providers. These features will change with time and would be a ongoing maintenance task on the County.
They do not require caches to be listed with GroundSpeak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emmanogoldfish wrote: |
| Be thankful that you are not charged a User Fee for registering the caches. |
Taxpayers should be thankful that they aren't charged a fee to utilize their parks that they pay taxes to maintain? Serious?
| Quote: |
Their policy should have a requirement that Dakota County Park and Recreation be notified if and when a cache is removed or modified.
Most of the features identified to better manage the status of caches are not available on all cache or letterbox listing services. They would have to build unique applications to utilize features of each of these service providers. These features will change with time and would be a ongoing maintenance task on the County.
They do not require caches to be listed with GroundSpeak. |
So require the extra work then for caches that they cannot watch through Groundspeak. I would have to guess that 90%+ caches are registered through Groundspeak.
The idea of a registration policy to begin with is not necessary. From there this policy just goes downhill.
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
emmanogoldfish
Geocacher
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| emmanogoldfish wrote: |
| Be thankful that you are not charged a User Fee for registering the caches. |
Taxpayers should be thankful that they aren't charged a fee to utilize their parks that they pay taxes to maintain? Serious? |
Serious, yes, that's a valid option for the County to help defray the costs. The costs of running the registration has been a topic in this thread. Should Joe and Jean Dakota County Taxpayer who don't geocache or visit the parks bear the cost? State Parks are owned by the State but if you want to visit them by vehicle you pay a user fee, when the MNGCA wants to use the meeting facility they pay a user fee, when someone wants a use a tent pad, ski trail, snowmobile, ATV or other trail they pay a user fee. The waters are owned by the state but to use them a watercraft registration fee is required. Even GroundSpeak Inc charges for Premium Features. Common practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| emmanogoldfish wrote: |
| Pear Head wrote: |
| emmanogoldfish wrote: |
| Be thankful that you are not charged a User Fee for registering the caches. |
Taxpayers should be thankful that they aren't charged a fee to utilize their parks that they pay taxes to maintain? Serious? |
Serious, yes, that's a valid option for the County to help defray the costs. The costs of running the registration has been a topic in this thread. Should Joe and Jean Dakota County Taxpayer who don't geocache or visit the parks bear the cost? State Parks are owned by the State but if you want to visit them by vehicle you pay a user fee, when the MNGCA wants to use the meeting facility they pay a user fee, when someone wants a use a tent pad, ski trail, snowmobile, ATV or other trail they pay a user fee. The waters are owned by the state but to use them a watercraft registration fee is required. Even GroundSpeak Inc charges for Premium Features. Common practice. |
Actually, Dakota County USED to require a fee for use of that swamp they call a beach in Lebanon Hills. Schultz Lake Beach. The guard shack might even still be by the front gate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Dakota County has enough money to host Miesville Resevoir for Goodhue County, I don't think they need to be charging fees for caching or swampy beaches.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the end the discussion is pointless as Dakota County has made one wise choice in not charging a fee and I don't live in or rarely cache in Dakota County.
edit - I decided to bite my tongue and summarize my post by leaving the last line in instead
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pfalstad
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 963
Location: Edina
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| Paklid wrote: |
| the county reviewer/approver takes on the responsibility inherent with the process. |
Just to play devil's advocate here, but where does SJ's responsibility fall in this? I honestly don't think I know the answer and would be interested in the discussion.
To me he's not liable any more than Groundspeak, which has a disclaimer that is shown when you load cache pages (which doesn't mean much either IMHO). I'd be interested in a discussion as well as a lawyer's take on it, although I'm not aware of any lawyers that are currently active in the organization (that are willing to speak up). |
Just idly curious are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
