| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:24 pm Post subject: Another city regulates caching |
 |
|
The city of Champlin now has a  Geocaching policy. I find it Interesting that their web page includes a link to MnGCA's site but as far as I know, they didn't talk to anyone here while formulating their policy.
I'll probably be giving them a call to get some clarification on a few things.
Moe
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rickrich
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Placement or gaining access to caches is restricted to within 25 feet of a trail.. |
This is one rule that seems like a good idea a first. When I was a newbie, I thought so as well. In fact, I pouted when I had to go off trail a significant amount.
But now I believe this rule is dead wrong. I've seen enough caches now to know what happens. This rule practically guarantees that a volunteer trail to the cache will be created.
I think the rule should be "Placement must be either 1) within arms reach of the trail, or 2) at least 100 feet from the trail."
By forcing caches way off the trail the likelihood of any two cachers following the same path to the cache is reduced (unless, of course, there is already a deer trail there). Thus, any disturbed vegetation has a chance to recover (unless there is already a deer trail there).
IMHO.
-Rick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to agree, rickrich. However, it's pretty obvious this policy was copied almost directly from the Three Rivers' policy. It was explained somewhere that the reason TR gave for the policy was to keep people out of sensitive areas. Apparently their trails are kept more than twenty-five feet away from any area they deem sensitive. Therefore if all caches are within 25 feet of a trail, they have to be out of sensitive areas.
Of course, if the person hunting the cache isn't aware of the rule, there's nothing to say they won't wander off trail further than 25 feet and into a sensitive area.
The biggest question I have about Champlin's (and TR's) policy is the one cache per person per park limit. This would seem to rule out multi-caches. I was planning on replacing my Galloway Park cache with a multi, with the intent of keeping seekers on the trail rather than cutting off across the fields.
I'm also concerned that the Champlin policy lists only a handful of parks that they will allow caches in. I have one cache (Creekside Solitude) already in a park not listed and it's a neat area to have a cache. I'm not sure why they would exclude that park. Aea0l also has a cache in a non-listed park.
Moe
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moe the Sleaze wrote: |
| The biggest question I have about Champlin's (and TR's) policy is the one cache per person per park limit. This would seem to rule out multi-caches. I was planning on replacing my Galloway Park cache with a multi, with the intent of keeping seekers on the trail rather than cutting off across the fields. |
I'm more concerned with first stages being in one park and the rest of the stages being in another (or multiple others). I have several multis setup this way and it would be unfortunate if I was unable to do that.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2348
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is Champlin the first CITY to regulate geocaching?
| Quote: |
| I don't count Owatonna, because the info is not available online. |
_________________
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
arrive...raise heck...leave (SCSA) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickrich
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, you gotta wonder what problem they have that they are trying to solve by rule making.
If it were my city, I'd be inclined to give 'em what they want -- the distinction of being the city with the greatest number of virtual caches in MN. By a couple of orders of magnitude.
Councilmember: what are you looking for?
Cacher: nothing. Lotta nothing. This city is good for nothing.
Hey, how far can you throw a virtual cache? I bet you could throw one right thru the windows of City Hall and it would land outside the mayors office.
-Rick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickrich
Geocacher
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, you gotta real beaut of a city council there in Champlin...
| Quote: |
| On Monday, May 10, 2004, the Champlin City Council voted [to make] Champlin's Park and Recreational Facilities tobacco free. In 30-60 days the City will install signs and begin marketing our new tobacco free park system policy. Under the policy no person is allowed to use any form of tobacco. |
Whats next? As dyl1231 would say: "Are you passing cache?".
    |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rickrich wrote: |
| Yeah, you gotta wonder what problem they have that they are trying to solve by rule making. |
Apparently what happened is a cacher, who doesn't frequent these boards, thought he was doing the right thing by asking someone at city hall for permission before hiding a cache. The person he spoke to had never heard of geocaching. In their discussion he pointed them to the Three Rivers policy. You can see where it went from there.
| rickrich wrote: |
Hmm, you gotta real beaut of a city council there in Champlin...
Quote:
On Monday, May 10, 2004, the Champlin City Council voted [to make] Champlin's Park and Recreational Facilities tobacco free. In 30-60 days the City will install signs and begin marketing our new tobacco free park system policy. Under the policy no person is allowed to use any form of tobacco.
|
Well, at least they get some things right!  
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2348
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| thought he was doing the right thing by asking someone at city hall for permission |
I guess I've done the wrong thing a few hundred times.
This made me think about approaching the Columbia Heights city council.
"So King, are there any of these things in the city yet?"
"Yes, a few."
"Where would that be?"
"Umm, Kordiak, Sullivan, Prestemon, Huset ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I moved the topic to "Park Relations" as I felt that was more on-topic...
While most of the active MNGCA members who post to the forum seem to share the same philosophy in regards to park relations (don't ask/don't tell) but it seems that the non-MNGCA members are following GC.com's suggestions and asking for permission. As we have witnessed this sometimes leads to regulations that aren't exactly friendly towards our current activities (ie Three Rivers/Champlin/etc). Perhaps we should do more to work on a set of regulations that would benefit geocachers and then when this sort of issue comes up we can present that as an alternative to what Three Rivers thinks is acceptable.
Three caches per park total with only one per person is great and all when you are talking about traditional/large caches. It's obvious to me that those involved with the regulations are unaware of micros, multis, etc. I would love to place a multi in Hanrehan but I am afraid of dealing with the paperwork and non-sense associated with it only to have them deny it because it would require more than one hide.
Is anyone actually willing to work on something like this? Is anyone actually willing to work on anything? 
Sorry for the rambling, enjoy the holiday weekend!
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Is anyone actually willing to work on something like this? |
I could probably be talked into helping draft a model regulation / ordinance. I would, however, need any statistics and/or studies available on actual environmental impact to butress the regs. In otherwords, if > 100 ft. is better than < 25 feet with regard to trails, is there anything that shows this to be true OTHER than common sense reasoning? I only ask, because common sense reasoning can usually cut both ways.
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sui generis wrote: |
| I would, however, need any statistics and/or studies available on actual environmental impact to butress the regs. In otherwords, if > 100 ft. is better than < 25 feet with regard to trails, is there anything that shows this to be true OTHER than common sense reasoning? |
This is very difficult to create statistics for as it all depends on the cache itself... Some caches are going to create more traffic than another due to location, cache type, difficulty, whatever. If there's a physical barrier to the cache people are going to likely choose the same route. If there is a mental barrier to the cache they are likely to just not do the cache
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sui generis
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 608
Location: Eagan, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
The studies do not need to be geocaching specific. How many people over what period of time walking over what piece of land will create a trail?
_________________
I am amazed by how many people harp on the need to speak and write English in this country while exhibiting a fundamental lack of skills in the areas of spelling and sentence composition. Would this be irony, hypocrisy, or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sui generis wrote: |
| The studies do not need to be geocaching specific. How many people over what period of time walking over what piece of land will create a trail? |
heh, glad you've got training in law. I could see so many holes with that specific information.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Early Starts
Geocacher
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 29
Location: Ham Lake, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:45 am Post subject: study |
|
|
| I remember seeing a study about mountain bike trails. I will see if I can find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
