 |
MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
minnesotabrad
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 1260
Location: Brooklyn Center MN
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| knowschad wrote: |
| Who at Dakota County can I talk to about this? Also, who are the elected officials that were part of the decision to come up with this wasteful and expensive solution to a non-problem? I want names and phone numbers. Don't worry... I won't be yelling, but I do want to make my opinion known, and to those that matter. |
When ever I have tried to discuss the caching policy they have implemented I get sent to the people who work at Lebanon Hills. Never have got very far with the people there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| minnesotabrad wrote: |
| knowschad wrote: |
| Who at Dakota County can I talk to about this? Also, who are the elected officials that were part of the decision to come up with this wasteful and expensive solution to a non-problem? I want names and phone numbers. Don't worry... I won't be yelling, but I do want to make my opinion known, and to those that matter. |
When ever I have tried to discuss the caching policy they have implemented I get sent to the people who work at Lebanon Hills. Never have got very far with the people there. |
Really? Is that as a representative of MNGCA? If so, that is way down on the totem pole! Has anybody spoken with the Board of Commissioners, or even with a single County Commissioner (I'm not speaking of Parks Commissioner here)?
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paklid
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 656
Location: Eagan
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Refresh my memory on this please. Since I'm also a Dakota county resident, if there's something I should be all up in arms about, I'd like to know what that is.
Having actually gone through the procedure they have in place for placing caches, and having done quite a few in Three Rivers parks, I would have to say the Dakota County procedure is easier. Not that the Three Rivers procedure is particularly tough, it's just that the Dakota County registration makes it a little easier.
If you're concerned about the Vermillion highlands park development vs. keeping the land as it is now, that's certainly a valid point of view. Personally, I'd have to come down on the side of making the parks accessible to as many residents as possible and that probably means having trails installed that allow passage. I've tromped all around that emerging park and there are many areas that are very difficult to push through.
So, what's the beef? Convince me that I also need to feel the policy is an affront to citizens.
_________________
-Paklid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I have said previously, cachers in other areas where registration has already been required probably see me as being "whiney". I totally understand that. But it seems to me that all that should have been required is extended contact information for anybody with a cache in their parks. In case there is an issue, they would then be able to do more than simply emailing through Groundspeak and hoping the account is still viable. I would gladly give them that information.
But what gets me is using taxpayer money to create a redundant database of coordinates and other information for caches in their parks. This is already available at geocaching.com, a fact that they are well aware of, because they used it to contact those with caches in their parks. The Dakota County database, besides being redundant, will eventually be totally wrong, unless they also use taxpayer dollars to have somebody keep it up-to-date with geocaching.com as caches get archived. This outdated data will also probably cause proximity issues when a new hider tries to put a cache out that is too near an archived cache.
Bottom line, Paklid, it is a stupid waste of my money and yours. But I'm not asking you to get upset about it. Just stating that I am.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NOSNOW
Geocacher
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| knowschad wrote: |
As I have said previously, cachers in other areas where registration has already been required probably see me as being "whiney". I totally understand that. But it seems to me that all that should have been required is extended contact information for anybody with a cache in their parks. In case there is an issue, they would then be able to do more than simply emailing through Groundspeak and hoping the account is still viable. I would gladly give them that information.
But what gets me is using taxpayer money to create a redundant database of coordinates and other information for caches in their parks. This is already available at geocaching.com, a fact that they are well aware of, because they used it to contact those with caches in their parks. The Dakota County database, besides being redundant, will eventually be totally wrong, unless they also use taxpayer dollars to have somebody keep it up-to-date with geocaching.com as caches get archived. This outdated data will also probably cause proximity issues when a new hider tries to put a cache out that is too near an archived cache.
Bottom line, Paklid, it is a stupid waste of my money and yours. But I'm not asking you to get upset about it. Just stating that I am. |
Your caches may be listed on geocacing.com, but you got to remember that although it's the big one, it's not the only site that list caches. With Garmin getting in the market of listing cahces [url=(Opencache)]http://www.opencaching.com/[/url]. They may need to have a consolidated list of cahces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NOSNOW wrote: |
| knowschad wrote: |
As I have said previously, cachers in other areas where registration has already been required probably see me as being "whiney". I totally understand that. But it seems to me that all that should have been required is extended contact information for anybody with a cache in their parks. In case there is an issue, they would then be able to do more than simply emailing through Groundspeak and hoping the account is still viable. I would gladly give them that information.
But what gets me is using taxpayer money to create a redundant database of coordinates and other information for caches in their parks. This is already available at geocaching.com, a fact that they are well aware of, because they used it to contact those with caches in their parks. The Dakota County database, besides being redundant, will eventually be totally wrong, unless they also use taxpayer dollars to have somebody keep it up-to-date with geocaching.com as caches get archived. This outdated data will also probably cause proximity issues when a new hider tries to put a cache out that is too near an archived cache.
Bottom line, Paklid, it is a stupid waste of my money and yours. But I'm not asking you to get upset about it. Just stating that I am. |
Your caches may be listed on geocacing.com, but you got to remember that although it's the big one, it's not the only site that list caches. With Garmin getting in the market of listing cahces [url=(Opencache)]http://www.opencaching.com/[/url]. They may need to have a consolidated list of cahces. |
You know that, and I know that, but I'm willing to bet that Dakota County doesn't know that. I'm guessing that the only ones they sent emails to were those that had them listed at Groundspeak.
I was just looking at the opencaching.com site, as a matter of fact. I wonder what that has done to the relationship between them and Groundspeak (although that is a topic for another thread)
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NOSNOW wrote: |
| knowschad wrote: |
As I have said previously, cachers in other areas where registration has already been required probably see me as being "whiney". I totally understand that. But it seems to me that all that should have been required is extended contact information for anybody with a cache in their parks. In case there is an issue, they would then be able to do more than simply emailing through Groundspeak and hoping the account is still viable. I would gladly give them that information.
But what gets me is using taxpayer money to create a redundant database of coordinates and other information for caches in their parks. This is already available at geocaching.com, a fact that they are well aware of, because they used it to contact those with caches in their parks. The Dakota County database, besides being redundant, will eventually be totally wrong, unless they also use taxpayer dollars to have somebody keep it up-to-date with geocaching.com as caches get archived. This outdated data will also probably cause proximity issues when a new hider tries to put a cache out that is too near an archived cache.
Bottom line, Paklid, it is a stupid waste of my money and yours. But I'm not asking you to get upset about it. Just stating that I am. |
Your caches may be listed on geocacing.com, but you got to remember that although it's the big one, it's not the only site that list caches. With Garmin getting in the market of listing cahces [url=(Opencache)]http://www.opencaching.com/[/url]. They may need to have a consolidated list of cahces. |
Yep, I do know that. And Dakota county has made it perfectly clear that they're only dealing with those found on geocaching.com. Strange, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5594
Location: north of Duluth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AerosmithPA
MnGCA Board
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 526
Location: Grand Rapids
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its an improvement, but I still don't know why they feel they need South and East in the coordinates dropdowns! (why dropdowns at all, really). Isn't every Dakota County park in N & W coordinates?
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission. |
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
