MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Eden Prairie Parks Meeting with Stu
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> Park Relations
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KRedEP
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Aug 2007

Posts: 784

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
KRedEP wrote:
Yay!!!! I'm glad to have this next step. It's nice to see a map, but it seems to me that some liberties have been taken in declaring areas not open to geocaching that were not designated that way by the original committee. Hopefully I'm wrong there and I'll look into it more when I have more time. I'm thrilled right now.


I don't know where the map originated from, but I have two suggestions here:

1. It seems like this should come from the MnGCA instead of an individual (and I understand that you're not necessarily going at it as an individual).

2. It seems like it may be best to sit on it for a month.

My personal $0.02.
I took your wisdom and sat on it for awhile. More for my own peace of mind to just savor the positive change and not ruin it in my mind. I'm still not all that thrilled with going back through the map park by park, which in my mind is what needs to be done. But I've been asked now about a specific park so I did look into that one. Lower Purgatory Creek Park was in the original plan to not have any restrictions on it. It did NOT have a 25' from trail requirement. In fact there is a very nice area to the south of the trail that I was waiting for the change to place some caches. I currently have 4 caches in that park and coincidentally all four are darn close the trail - but I did that more for the convenience of the cachers than for any requirements. That park is down in a canyon and the coordinates are difficult. I'm disappointed that this additional requirement was added to the map considering the committee did not create that requirement and the Parks Commission also did not approve that change. I would like to have this change (and possibly other changes that I haven't identified yet) pursued with the city.

On a related note, in the local paper very recently there is news of the skateboard park being updated and replaced since it is so old. The skatepark and the frisbee golf course are two examples I can think of where citizens came to the city (similar to geocaching) asking for this amenity. I don't know if the citizens raised the money to originally install these, but I know the city is responsible for maintaining them and this is dedicated land to this sport. While what we do is often in city parks, it does not require any dollar outlay by the city other than their general parks maintenance that is already being done. It disappoints me that I am made to feel that we are interlopers causing trouble for MY city.

So there's my $.02
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5692

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KRedEP wrote:
So there's my $.02


I think if it were me I'd start getting a group and a game plan together, either through the MnGCA or locally, to take on the issues. I agree that you've highlighted some significant issues.
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
dornole
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Apr 2006

Posts: 458

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't recollect what was said about Lower Purgatory initially but I am not surprised at all that it is restricted. It was created at the same time as the other restricted trail systems. I got paid to do the minutes for some of those meetings and the neighbor input was VERY extensive and careful as was the trail placement to avoid encroachments and environmental impacts.

Are there other parks besides that one you feel are in error?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNMizzou
Geocacher


Joined: 23 Feb 2005

Posts: 707

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The map is sort of curious to me... for example Smetana Lake, the majority of it is red (at Viking Drive and Valley View) for the life of me I have no idea why... it is a simple paved trail around the lake in that western part of the lake. (Where I work is right across the street from there so I know it pretty well) Curious what is so special about that area??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GeoPierce
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Nov 2005

Posts: 1657

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNMizzou wrote:
The map is sort of curious to me... for example Smetana Lake, the majority of it is red (at Viking Drive and Valley View) for the life of me I have no idea why... it is a simple paved trail around the lake in that western part of the lake. (Where I work is right across the street from there so I know it pretty well) Curious what is so special about that area??

Stu told us a lot of the land around there is owned by the businesses but the parks have trails there.
_________________
Tupperware doesn't belong in the kitchen!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KRedEP
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Aug 2007

Posts: 784

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNMizzou wrote:
The map is sort of curious to me... for example Smetana Lake, the majority of it is red (at Viking Drive and Valley View) for the life of me I have no idea why... it is a simple paved trail around the lake in that western part of the lake. (Where I work is right across the street from there so I know it pretty well) Curious what is so special about that area??
haha curious. Yes. I agree with GP on the private property statement; I had trouble placing my "across the lake" cache because of that. But now that I compare the two maps, two of my existing caches, if not all three appear to NOT fall into the green zone. And these caches were all specifically approved. Sigh, I wanted to archive these and replace. I am not sure, but it appears to me that the areas that are not colored at all are the private property parcels. I am baffled by the rest of the red zone. These two examples (Smetana and Lower Purg. Creek) are what I initially noticed when first looking at this map and got frustrated. I cooled off, but now am back to being frustrated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dornole
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Apr 2006

Posts: 458

PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just have a strong gut feeling that this map is not going to change anytime in the near future and that making peace with it is the road to happiness right now. I would be quite surprised if Jay or the commision would choose to overrule Stu on the map particulars. You are not going to change Stu's cautious personality and to be fair I would not underestimate the potential blowback from businesses or EP residents (see EP schools megadrama). Getting rid of registration is great and if the sky doesn't fall then "maybe" we can get map changes in the future. Right now though I think it wouldn't work and also might just get their back up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ThePurplePuppy
Geocacher


Joined: 06 Oct 2010

Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm the one that has start this conversation about Lower Purgatory Creek Park. I got up Saturday morning and placed 2 new caches down there. I originally had forgotten about the 25' foot from the trail rule; so after a nice note from Gat R Done, I went down and moved my cache. I made sure that both were 25 feet from the trail. Saturday evening one got published and one did not. Sunday, I contacted Kred and she and I went down to check my coords with another GPSr and a tape measure.

We got a great deal of bounce, but came up with coords we thought were good. The tape measure says that the cache is exactly 22 feet from the trail. However, the cache in questions still isn't published.

My question is...how accurate is the map given the reviewers? I have given coords for both the trail and my cache. I'm happy to play by the rules of the park and I know the reviews are be extremely careful about caches in EP. I don't blame them.

I'm just finding it frustrating that I'm playing by the rules, and my cache for the enjoyment of others can't get published. It's a beautiful park and I hope that we all will be able to enjoy caching there.

Just my two cents of the morning!

Michelle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 35

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ThePurplePuppy wrote:
My question is...how accurate is the map given the reviewers? I have given coords for both the trail and my cache. I'm happy to play by the rules of the park and I know the reviews are be extremely careful about caches in EP. I don't blame them.


It's my understanding that we have the same map that is on EP's website, we just have it in a different format (that we're not allowed to share due to restrictions from where the map came from) that allows us to superimpose coordinates on it. For us it's very black and white (or red and green in this case) - the cache is either in an "ok" area or it's not. There isn't any room for interpretation on our part.

IF we were to publish a cache in the red area, it would also be very visible to EP that a cache was published in the red area.

Quote:
I'm just finding it frustrating that I'm playing by the rules, and my cache for the enjoyment of others can't get published. It's a beautiful park and I hope that we all will be able to enjoy caching there.


My suggestion is to work with the reviewer. If you're sure that the cache is inside the allowable area, but the reviewer says that it's not, then discuss it with the reviewer. He may contact EP on your behalf, or in some situations, may suggest that you contact EP directly. Follow the reviewer's lead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RudeRat
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 09 Jul 2008

Posts: 791

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

22 feet from the edge of the trail could be more than 25 from the center of the trail.
_________________
Ahhhhhhhh, the power of cheese!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I can tell, there *may* be a slight difference about where the trail is located between the geocaching maps provided (both the ones we use and the .pdf version) and the official EP trail map of Purgatory Creek Park posted on their website for the location in question. The variation is well over 100 feet, so it's not just a difference of a few feet from a trail.

Rather than publishing a cache in an unauthorized area and risk the hard work everyone has done to develop the EP policy, I did not publish the cache at this time. I have emailed Stu for clarification about the trail's location and approval if appropriate.

Please be patient until a resolution is determined.

******If anyone ever has a question about a location in an EP park, please create a cache page (blank is fine) with the coordinates and email one reviewer a link to the unactivated page. We will be more than happy to check the location for you.*******
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ThePurplePuppy
Geocacher


Joined: 06 Oct 2010

Posts: 40

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the update! Hopefully we'll hear from Stu soon! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KRedEP
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Aug 2007

Posts: 784

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe the reviewer could provide to the CO the coordinates of where said virtual trail is. Personally, I would be happy to comply with where EP thinks the trail is. It is much easier to find a good spot to hide a cache that would be within 25 feet of the virtual trail than 25 feet from the actual trail. Wink

Seriously, I appreciate the time and care the reviewers are taking with this. It seems by making things easier for the cacher, EP has created a lot of extra grief for the reviewer. The reviewers are doing a great job of straddling both sides.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> Park Relations All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Page 8 of 8

 
Jump to:  
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.