Groundspeak Portal

Recently I learned that the Pennsylvania DCNR (the agency that manages our state parks and state forests) revised its geocaching policy.  You can read it here: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/geocaching.aspx

As you can see, the policy purports to require land manager review of waymark submissions in state parks and state forests.  This concerns me, for two reasons.  First, so long as I'm at a legal spot in the park or forest, what difference does it make if I used a waymark on my GPS or a tourist brochure in order to bring me to the spot featured by the waymark?  The odds are good that the target of the waymark is something that "regular" people are coming to the park to see, like a giant tree or a CCC project or a good fishing spot or a mountain biking trail. 

Second, because of the decentralized nature of the waymark review and management process, how can category managers around the world possibly be aware of and follow individual land manager policies?  As a volunteer reviewer for geocache submissions in Pennsylvania, I am familiar with the DCNR policy and many other policies that apply in my territory, and I quiz cache hiders on their compliance with those policies.  The cache review process is covered by a small group of dedicated volunteers, and is organized geographically.  It is unreasonable to expect the same sort of formal review process for waymarks.  If there's a waymark target in a Pennsylvania state park but the manager lives in Germany, it's not their job to study local regulations.  I sure hope that the state regulators don't get upset at Waymarking.com for not doing their screening work for them like Geocaching.com does.  I, for one, don't plan on quizzing a waymark submitter about compliance with the policy.  If someone submits a marker in a state park to my Pennsylvania Historic Markers category, I will happily approve it if it meets the stated category requirements.

So what does everyone think of this?  And is anyone aware of other land manager policies that attempt to regulate waymark placements?

I thought that one of the main purposes for waymarks (and for virtual caches before that) is to allow for a point of interest to be referenced by coordinates so that people interested in visiting that spot could find it, but without the complications of having a physical cache container at that spot.  While I support reasonable land manager regulation of geocache containers, I don't much like the idea of regulating a set of latitude and longitude coordinates.

In part, I blame the earthcaching program for this development.  To set up an earthcache, land manager approval is required, yet there is no cache container.  (In fact, an earthcache WITH a cache container, like with interesting rock samples inside, would be summarily rejected.)  I can appreciate why a land manager might think that their regulatory authority extends to waymarks, because of the earthcaching precedent.

All of the foregoing is my personal opinion as a waymarker and does not represent an official statement on behalf of Groundspeak.

There's this interesting part. "Unauthorized geocaches on State Park or State Forest lands will be removed and treated as abandoned property, and the responsible person may be cited for littering." What about waymarks? Are they going to cite you with taking a photo without permission?

They do list it as Virtual/Waymark and explain that Virtual caches will be treated as waymarks now....so I can see their reasoning for this....

BUT.....

I don't see how they can really regulate it!  I mean, they can't really regulate me finding the park or forest on Google Maps, and just picking some spot and getting Google's coordinates for that spot and then listing it on some webpage!

I -could- do that right now!  On a non-groundspeak website.   Call it a wayPOINT.

A Civics instructor taught me something: An unenforceable law is not worth anything at all. It's worse than useless. And that's what they've done regarding waymarks.

Also, posting the coordinates just outside of the official entrance to a park or forest isn't in their jurisdiction at all.  And that further hamstrings the policy about waymarking.

AND....

There are a few non-groundspeak geocaching websites out there.  They (or at least one) still allow Virtual Caches.  So the Pennsylvania DCNR should not just globally say that Virtuals will be treated like Waymarks......

This falls in the category of a land manager not understanding what a waymark is.  For them to state they must approve waymarks would be same as saying the must approve any website that lists locations in  their parks.  Do they require Trails.com to get approval to list trails within their park? Or any of the travel website which happens to say where the state park is located. Only difference is how we say where things are.

What are they going to remove if I list one of their state parks in the state park category?  The sign out in front?

That is an interesting update to their policy.  I would be inclined to agree with BruceS.  It appears to me that there is a misunderstand about what Waymarking is.  Also as Occam mentioned, what's the difference between Waymarking and some individual keeping a log of waypoints for various points of interest?

I did see where they mention specifically a concern about "ecological sensitive area in need of protection."  Do the PA state parks allow open hunting and such?  I'm just curious because the Ohio State Parks and Wildlife Areas do, and allow off trail hiking.  Usually if there is a sensitive area they try to fence it off.  While I DO understand why the ODNR doesn't allow Geocaching in the Wildlife areas, I couldn't image why they wouldn't allow a Waymark in the same area where everyone else is free to walk around.  One wouldn't do any more damage Waymarking than they would hiking.

saopaulo1:

There's this interesting part. "Unauthorized geocaches on State Park or State Forest lands will be removed and treated as abandoned property, and the responsible person may be cited for littering." What about waymarks? Are they going to cite you with taking a photo without permission?

Since a state park or forest is public land then they can't restrict photos unless you are within a signed restricted area, such as administration areas, etc. or  there is some special reason (flash photography upsetting a delicate wildlife area maybe?  I don't know), at least in the U.S. 

I wouldn’t worry, waymarking is different to caching because you are not hiding anything, just taking photos, No one can object to that.

 

My opinions.

Just another way to try and control everything.

Once they get these controls they can then tell you how to enjoy your Public Lands.

It should work the other way and does here for me.

I am in good repore with the local Officials and have made a point to find the sensitive areas.

It would also be nice to know what these places are so they can be protected and we could help.....not hinder.

A well placed Geocache or Waymark could add to the enjoyment of something that you may not have known was there.

My short three word reply would be

"Local Laws Apply"

 

If the park authority wishes to state that the activity of Waymarking is not permitted without their permission, let them handle it accordingly by policing the sites THEMSELVES, much like they do with other non-sanctioned activities.  They can report offending listings to Groundspeak, and would hopefully be educated by the legal team there..

In this case, PA parks will lose, in my opinion.  With the increased Flickr/Photobucket/Google plug in stuff and Geo-Tagging of photos, they really don't have a leg to stand on.  Photography in a publicly accessible place is not against the law, tourists are encouraged to do so and promoting others to visit such locations should be a part of the park mandate, not something they deter.

BQ

I think the definition of a waymark should be cleared up before it puts in jeopardy geocaches in PA state parks.

saopaulo1:

I think the definition of a waymark should be cleared up before it puts in jeopardy geocaches in PA state parks.

 

This is a long one. This has come up before, so using the same example.. we have an historic carousel in town http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN9F

Tourists and familes take photos all the time with no issue.  However, if you want to take what the city determines as "professional photography" then you must pay a $150 fee for the rights to use the site.  This is presumably to recapture some of the profits created from any publications made where the photographer would be making money from their pictures.

Groundspeak, the parent company and host of Waymarking.com, is a business.  As such, all intellectual property on every one of their sites can be considered means to attract additional PAYING customers, known as "Premium Members".  This differs from Flickr and other related groups which operate for free through the use of ads.  Couple this requirement with the fact that sometimes people will copy text from websites operated by these very parks, now we are on a real slippery slope.

However in this case Waymarking is also a means of free advertizing for every Waymark location that is created by the members and further attracts additional exposure.  I have yet to experience a location that does not want to increase its own exposure regardless of the purpose of its existing, with the exception of locations that are off-limits to begin with. 

Educating the areas about Waymarking will never be easy because they will view it in the same manner that they viewed Virtuals.  And for reasons unknown to me Jeremy Irish, the founder of Groundspeak and really groovy guy, decided to allow land owners to say that virtuals could be regulated.  It may have been a community relations item, or a blanket way to handle the issue instead of the man hours needed to handle each on a case-by-case basis.  Doesn't really matter now, the position is in place.

At the end of everything, there are a few possible scenarios:

- PA will come to understand that they should not regulate Waymarking.  Off limit areas are already off limits, posted as such and enforcement continues as it is.  Waymarks created in off limits areas should be reported and archived.

- PA will attempt to enforce a "Permission to Waymark" policy and Groundspeak will reply "Take it up with the person creating the Waymark, we are just a hosting site."

- PA will attempt to enforce a "Permission to Waymark" policy and Groundspeak will reply "Send us a list and we will archive the listings."

 

One would hope that any such move by PA is based in a lack of awareness, and will be challenged and overturned.  At one time a local group "Niagara Parks Commission" created a policy on Geocaching and in it they included Virtuals/Waymarks to which I replied "Why do you believe you can regulate people's right to take photographic images when you encourage tourists to do the same?  Does the creation of lists of places of interest hinder or enhance the visitor experience?"  They struck the line immediately and realized that it is better to work with locals than to prevent them sharing these great places to see.

BQ

disclaimer: As a volunteer reviewer for geocaching.com the above statements reflect my personal opinions and may or may not be those of Groundspeak.  I do not speak for Groundspeak in any capacity.

the blue quasar:

Groundspeak, the parent company and host of Waymarking.com, is a business.  As such, all intellectual property on every one of their sites can be considered means to attract additional PAYING customers, known as "Premium Members".  This differs from Flickr and other related groups which operate for free through the use of ads.  Couple this requirement with the fact that sometimes people will copy text from websites operated by these very parks, now we are on a real slippery slope.

Well actually, you can use geocaching.com without paying, but if you want to upgrade for more features, you need to pay to become a Premium Member.  Flickr does the same thing.  You can use the site for free, but if you want extra features, you can get a "Pro" account.  Both sites use extra advertising to help pay the bills.

While I am aware of what you are saying, the parks may take a different view.

By posting spacial data like coordinates, it could be construde as sanctioning of activities.  In a way it is like saying "This is okay", compared to saying "This is okay HERE".  You can rock climb, but the park might say 'yeah, but not here"

BQ

While I am aware of what you are saying, the parks may take a different view.

By posting spacial data like coordinates, it could be construde as sanctioning of activities.  In a way it is like saying "This is okay", compared to saying "This is okay HERE".  You can rock climb, but the park might say 'yeah, but not here"

BQ

I might be wrong, but I would think a governmental entity dictating what can and cannot be published on the Web would run afoul of Constitutional Law.

They might be concerned about attracting attention to areas which are sensitive to the presence of humans such as threatened or endangered species habitat.

I once tried opening a dialogue with the NPS to explore what their policy might be (for my Places of Geologic Significance category) but the discussion kind of petered out with the person I was in contact with.  I guess it wasn't really a big issue for them at that time. 

rakeinthecache:

They might be concerned about attracting attention to areas which are sensitive to the presence of humans such as threatened or endangered species habitat.

I once tried opening a dialogue with the NPS to explore what their policy might be (for my Places of Geologic Significance category) but the discussion kind of petered out with the person I was in contact with.  I guess it wasn't really a big issue for them at that time. 

 

Someone that I have a great deal of respect for taught me an easy expression.  "Local Laws Apply"

Areas posted off-limits are simply that... off-limits.  That is the soft way of saying "No Trespassing" which is the soft way of saying "Cross this line and you lose money or spend in jail"

Activities specified as not permitted are simply that, and even if you think that your activity is much like another, if the land manager doesn't agree and has posted policy dicating what is not acceptable use of the land then by posting photographs or coordinates you are breaking that policy and encouraging others to do so.

Example from the real world.  If I put up a sign saying "No smoking - offenders will be charged with trespassing." on my property, that is fair notice.  As it stands now, I can charge anyone I want with trespassing that steps foot on my property but typically it is not in my best interest to do so.

But based on established patterns from Groundspeak, if a park contacts them and states that they do not want any form of GPS gaming done on their land and provide a list of items, it usually has resulted in those listings being archived as soon as possible.  Groundspeak is a listing service, and it is up to you as the listing provider to resolve such issues.  In other words, if you need permission... get it.

BQ

rakeinthecache:

They might be concerned about attracting attention to areas which are sensitive to the presence of humans such as threatened or endangered species habitat.

I once tried opening a dialogue with the NPS to explore what their policy might be (for my Places of Geologic Significance category) but the discussion kind of petered out with the person I was in contact with.  I guess it wasn't really a big issue for them at that time. 

 

Someone that I have a great deal of respect for taught me an easy expression.  "Local Laws Apply"

Areas posted off-limits are simply that... off-limits.  That is the soft way of saying "No Trespassing" which is the soft way of saying "Cross this line and you lose money or spend in jail"

Activities specified as not permitted are simply that, and even if you think that your activity is much like another, if the land manager doesn't agree and has posted policy dicating what is not acceptable use of the land then by posting photographs or coordinates you are breaking that policy and encouraging others to do so.

Example from the real world.  If I put up a sign saying "No smoking - offenders will be charged with trespassing." on my property, that is fair notice.  As it stands now, I can charge anyone I want with trespassing that steps foot on my property but typically it is not in my best interest to do so.

But based on established patterns from Groundspeak, if a park contacts them and states that they do not want any form of GPS gaming done on their land and provide a list of items, it usually has resulted in those listings being archived as soon as possible.  Groundspeak is a listing service, and it is up to you as the listing provider to resolve such issues.  In other words, if you need permission... get it.

BQ

the blue quasar:

rakeinthecache:

They might be concerned about attracting attention to areas which are sensitive to the presence of humans such as threatened or endangered species habitat.

I once tried opening a dialogue with the NPS to explore what their policy might be (for my Places of Geologic Significance category) but the discussion kind of petered out with the person I was in contact with.  I guess it wasn't really a big issue for them at that time. 

 

Someone that I have a great deal of respect for taught me an easy expression.  "Local Laws Apply"

Areas posted off-limits are simply that... off-limits.  That is the soft way of saying "No Trespassing" which is the soft way of saying "Cross this line and you lose money or spend in jail"

Activities specified as not permitted are simply that, and even if you think that your activity is much like another, if the land manager doesn't agree and has posted policy dicating what is not acceptable use of the land then by posting photographs or coordinates you are breaking that policy and encouraging others to do so.

Example from the real world.  If I put up a sign saying "No smoking - offenders will be charged with trespassing." on my property, that is fair notice.  As it stands now, I can charge anyone I want with trespassing that steps foot on my property but typically it is not in my best interest to do so.

But based on established patterns from Groundspeak, if a park contacts them and states that they do not want any form of GPS gaming done on their land and provide a list of items, it usually has resulted in those listings being archived as soon as possible.  Groundspeak is a listing service, and it is up to you as the listing provider to resolve such issues.  In other words, if you need permission... get it.

BQ

I think it's a complicated issue. There's nothing illegal about taking a photo in a park, or posting a photo on line. With a regular Geochace, it can be seens as littering.

You could post a sign in front of your home saying "No Taking Photos" but as long as the person is on public property, there's nothing you can do.

Yes, totally agree.

 

When you are on park land... that might be for public use, but there are limits about what you can do during your visit.

Let's put this a different way.  If I was over at Bruce's house for a BBQ and he happens to have a anchor in his backyard ... and obviously he doesn't Waymark it because he doesn't want people coming into his backyard whenever they feel like it.

Bruce goes inside to get us some pop/soda... and while he is away, I take a photo and record the GPS location (I'm sneaky like that).  Later that night I create the entry for it and then Tiki-4 publishes it.  What would happen when Bruce complains to OpinioNate?

 

This is one way a park might react... "We said NO GPS gaming allowed".  Heck, some parks don't allow horseshoes or lawn darts.... some don't allow propane barbeques, only charcoal. (Not kidding, image available upon request LOL, it's a city bylaw).

Like Lep said though it will be impossible to get every group to learn every regulation out there, if an Anchor is in the middle of a National Park or even one in Penns... I would publish it without question and if the local park has a problem with it they can waste their resources chasing it down and look stupid.  Should one write to me regardless of the category my response would likely be "This appears to be a publicly accessible location that was created for people to see.  Waymarking is helping to promote that.  If this area is off limits to the general population then those people should be charged with trespassing in accordance to the signs posted and local laws."

BQ