opencaching.com

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

In preliminary conversations with geocachers who have worked with landowners and in watching threads on opencaching there are two schools of thought on cache listings. One doesn’t use approvers. Caches are listed and rated then filtered according to whatever rating systems is developed. Johnny on the Spot Geocacher will pull the cache or archive it after the community has found the cache lacking. I’m still fuzzy on how this works exactly. The part that matters is that there is no up front approver.

The purpose of an approver is to ensure that only caches that meet the community standards are listed. It’s as simple as that. Community standards can vary where there is a local organization willing and able to take on the task of defining local or national standards.

The first reason to have an approver is to flat out reject bullshit caches. Lisa Luv’s web cam cache, where to find it you have to post a cam photo of you boinking Lisa should probably never get listed. Spam should never get listed. Etc. Approvers are the first line of defense against this. They can archive the junk caches as defined by the community before it clutters up the database. They can even release the waypoint numbers back into the system if the system can accommodate that.

The second reason is that landowners who are a big thing in the USA can have a single point of contact for cache problems. The best person to handle cache issues is the person who approves caches locally. While this is preferably a local group, the larger organization also needs to act as the point of contact where the local groups do not exist to do the job. For a landowner to call any of the 400 geocachers in the area or to call a vacation cacher who left behind a cache that violates local policy is more than they want to deal with. They want to call one person and say “there is a cache that is a problem” and that person can then interface with the 400 local cachers and solve the problem. The catch here is that the landowner expects the person they talk to, to have the authority to deal with the problem. Approvers again fit the bill.

The third reason is that the apparent lack of an approver based system is costing this site the support of a lot of potential members and local organizations. This is a fact I keep running into as I’m working on developing the organization into something more than a pipe dream.

The arguments against approvers are that they are not local, that they enforce stupid guidelines in an inconsistent fashion. One goal of the organization is to empower local groups which will solve the first problem. Another fact is that guidelines can be changed by the members who will own the organization. The potential for inconsistent approvals will always be a problem with the approver system since approvers are human. However this can be minimized by a combination of good guidelines and local support of their local approvers. There is room in an approver system to have them just rubber stamp caches with no guidelines if that is what the local or national finds works best for their area.

There are probably more reasons to have approvers but these three are the ones that stand out at this early stage. Our landowner policy is under development along with most other aspects of the organization. However things point towards an approver based system as the most flexible system in meeting the challenges we face as an organization. Unless the teams who are building the organization have an epiphany and come up with a better means of accommodating both geocachers and landowners the approver path is what we are heading down. For all intents and purposes this is a working decision subject to verification when the teams developing the organization have their final say based on better information on what will work in the real world.

If you disagree there is still room on the organizatoin side to be on the teams that will make the final decisions.

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Argument for Approvers

RK, you are doing opencaching a disservice by saying an opencaching system doesn't use approvers. It does. It can have a national organization, it can have local organizations, it can have individuals who are respected by the community, it can have all of these and more serve the function of approvers. People looking for a seal of approval on the caches they hunt can have them. Landowners looking to identify and take action against caches that fail to obtain whatever seal of approval the landowners care about can have that, too. So, it's wrong to claim an opencaching system doesn't use approvers. Its approval system can be better than anything in place today.

So, the debate isn't over whether to have approvers or not. It's whether one group of cachers should have the power to dictate to the rest of the community which caches are allowed to be enjoyed and which aren't. The whole opencaching movement is, in part, a reaction to the failure of that kind of approach. Driving cachers underground through censorship will serve no landowner any good. Providing an open system that is flexible enough to serve everybody's interest, including the landowners, is a Good Thing (TM).

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

The previous post was mine. I failed to notice I wasn't logged in before hitting submit.
_________________
Scout http://GPSgames.org

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

Scout I understand that the system you have proposes uses all cashers as approvers of sorts after a cache is listed. This has no approvers in the sence that people are used to, which is up front. Nor is the solution that meets with my current understanding of what landowners and local organizations want to support a site such as ours.

Your system may work fine but it's real world information from real land managers and the local groups that this site needs to be built on. I have gotten this feedback and while it is still in the works to get a landowner liason going to get better information, for now this is what we have to work. A working decision needed to be made now, and was.

I have to put the ball in your court to show me where actual landmanagers are saying a system different than a single point of contact with approvers who they can get to know on a first name basis is the way to go. If you had time or an interest in determining this directly odds are you would of stepped up to the plate when I asked for people to volunteer to do this very work. You are welcome to be on that team.

The debate is on the guidlines the approver will have, how they will be selected, how lanowners will contact them, whether they can approve their own caches and how to fit the local and national organizations into the scheme so they can take over the cache approval function. If the landower liason team comes up with a different system that works better for all the problems we have to solve we will run with it at that time. The purpose of a working decision is to provide a best guess at the outcome so that work can continue with a minimal chance of being reversed later.

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

I don't know what you are saying to local groups and land managers, but if you are out there describing opencaching as a system without approvers, then I'm not surprised that you are encountering resistance.

I've told you repeatedly how an opencaching system of approval would work and how it improves on the failings of the current system. How about you telling us how your system of approval would work?

Will we keep two sets of books? One to hold cache submissions in secret until they are approved? By whom? Who has access to the secret set of books? How do I gain access? What if one of my cache submissions is rejected? To whom do I appeal? What if I don't recognize the authority of the person who rejected my cache submission and submit my cache to another listing service? What if I find that everybody is rejecting my caches, so I create my own node in the opencaching network and begin listing caches that are being rejected by the Renegade Knight node? Who is the single point of contact that the landowner is going to turn to then?
_________________
Scout http://GPSgames.org

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351

So, four questions, not directed at anyone in particular:

Can "Joe Geocacher" (JG) through settings search *archived* caches?

Can JG through settings search "unapproved" caches? (use whatever definition you like for approved)

Is cache data for archived and unapproved caches passed in the syndication file?

Is there some 'pact' or agreement have to be entered into between nodes to all play by the same 'approval' rules?

It seems to me if the answer to any of those questions is yes, the entire notion of 'approvers' at some abstract level other than end user is meaningless.

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

welch · Joined: 25 Sep 2003 Posts: 25

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

Guest · Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:03 pm Post subject:

What am I missing?

You want to have approvers to insure that caches conform to accepted cache standards.

Is GC.com not doing this already???

Land managers will be happier if they only have one source to go to. Having to go to 6 websites to find which one approved that cache they dont like will most certainly turn them off.

Have any of you ever talked to a land manager? I have and I can tell you that this wild west concept will not fly. Neither will having several sites listing caches.

Perhaps if you worked with GC.com rather than gipe in the forums you will get a better response. CAtch more flies with honey than vinegar.

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351

CoyoteRed · Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 220

If cache placers are being respectful of the land and to the managers there shouldn't be a problem. Second, if you go to a cache model closer to a letterbox where the contact info is in/on the box, there's your contact. There is no need to look further.

CR
_________________
"...been know to miss the finer points."

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351