property maps

Just a note here. Google KML files are not legal property lines.
They are meant for reference only and not for legal identification.
Also not admissible in a court of law as defense of a property line.

Many of those county GIS links need to be updated they lead to a dead end. I have found that going to the county website gets me to the new link.
It has come to my attention that some geocache hides have been wrongly rejected with claim that they are in a WMA.
Those KML files from the DNR are for reference only and do not in any way represent the actual property line.
I would suggest that the actual GIS maps published by the county be referenced.
I have personally been to these hides and find the Actual property markers noting the WMA boundary are 50 feet to the east.
The hides are along a bike trail that is owned by the state highway department that borders the WMA. This bike trail property is 100 feet wide the Soo line.
Google maps Identify it as the soo line ATV trail. Sorry but ATV trails are not paved and this trail is. If you do not already know this, GOOGLE wrongly identifies many places on its maps.
Heck for a long time It identified a farm as Mount Rushmore. That was not fixed until it hit the newspaper, A very big embarrassment for them . I also argued with a reviewer about a park In Brooklyn Park.
The reviewer claimed it existed. Where did he get his info? The city of Brooklyn Park, Park administrator told me the reviewer was wrong that no such park existed.
I even supplied the reviewer with a county parks map. Still he claimed I was wrong even though the city proved me right. I sure hope our reviewers are not using google maps or google earth
in their decisions. I can assure you that the GIS system is not using GOOGLE, nor is the state using GOOGLE to identify legal property lines.

Thanks, I've added it.  It appears that it does give property owner info without being signed in.

We use the KML files provided to us by the DNR (and others) as a starting point because the amount of time it takes to look up each parcel individually on each county's website is time prohibitive.  The KML files provide us with a quick reference to start with.  The DNR files in particular often include more land than what is actually managed by the DNR.  We are very much aware of the limitations of each file.  Some KML files are more or less accurate than others.

We also rely heavily on Google Maps as a starting point for maps.  Again, the amount of time required to evaluate each cache location on a county's GIS website is very time prohibitive.  I don't know how long it takes Gat R Done to look them up, but for me on average it probably adds 5 minutes or more to each cache that I have to look up on a county GIS site.  5 minutes isn't the end of the world for one cache, but multiply that by 20+...

I strongly recommend telling us up front, when you submit the listing, the details about a cache, especially if Google Maps doesn't accurately show what's at the location.  I've suggested this in the past (see 2a and 3 here: mngca.freeforums.net/thread/75/mn-cache-reviewing ).

What's the GC code of the Brooklyn Park cache that you're referring to?

You still didn't give me the GC code.  It appears that you're talking about GC4KGQN.  Here's a summary of the notes (I can provide you some screen shots if you'd like):

You originally told us in the reviewer notes that it was owned by Brooklyn Park but was not a city park.  You didn't provide any justification for how you knew this.

Gat R Done responded with the Brooklyn Park template, indicating that this was actually in a city park.

At that point you gave Gat R Done more of the picture.  You indicated that you checked with Hennepin County (which BTW is not the landowner) and that they said it is not a Brooklyn Park park.  You also provided the parcel information, which is inconclusive.  The parcel ownership info indicates that the parcel is owned by Brooklyn Park but nothing more that was relevant to if it was a park or not.

At that point Gat R Done wrote the following:

"It's owned by the City of Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Park designates it as Veterans Park.

The permission/permit process is not difficult. Is there some reason you do not want to complete the process?"

You failed to respond and the cache was archived in a cleanup process 3 months later.

The data the Gat R Done used was from a file that Brooklyn Park GIS provided me outlining their park properties.  This doesn't come from Google.  This came directly from the City of Brooklyn Park.

If you're interested in still placing a cache at this location please let me know.  To date the data still shows this as a Brooklyn Park.  If there's a discrepancy in that then both Gat R Done and myself are interested in clearing that up.   I searched my gmail account and don't have anything regarding this cache that I can find, and there are no further notes on the listing.  Normally Brooklyn Park would have emailed both of us to let us know that there was a discrepancy.  Can you forward me a copy of the email you received at the time?  If an error was made then I'm happy to help fix it, but I just can't see what the error is based on the information at hand.

The city's park mapping that they show the public doesn't identify this as a park property.  As we know from other municipalities, the public facing site doesn't always identify all park properties, especially those that are undeveloped.  The lack of a park on a city's mapping site isn't conclusive evidence that the park doesn't actually exist.

What is bothersome to me is that you make accusations about where we get our data from and how we use it, yet you:

A) Don't appear to know where it comes from.
B) Don't like the fact that the data provided by the GIS department doesn't correspond with what you want.
C) Want to drag it through a public forum.

There's a way to approach these types of situations tactfully.  Blowing it out of proportion like this isn't one of them.

That said, again, if you're still interested in placing a cache here I would be happy to follow up with Brooklyn Park's park department and/or their GIS department to clear up the confusion.  Just send me an email or submit a new listing with some notes about what you believe the error is/was.

I'm not saying that this parcel isn't necessarily a park or not (I don't know that information based on what you've told me and would need to follow up).  I'm saying that the data regarding your cache doesn't show any conversation that makes it publishable.  If there was conversation not on the cache page then it's hard for me to comment on it further, but usually we make a habit of quoting that conversation back to the reviewer notes to keep it all in one place.

If Mary Pat Black told us that it wasn't a park then we'd publish the listing.  There are cachers out there that have gone through similar circumstances with Three Rivers.  When Three Rivers clears a cache that was previously shown to be in one of their properties then we've published it without hesitation and updated our maps.  However, that clearance needs to come from the park authority, not third hand information from a cacher.

We have a very good working (two-way) relationship with every park authority that has a permitting process in place in the state.  There's no reason we'd jeopardize that over park property ownership.

Just a reminder: This discussion area was set up as a place to ask reviewers questions about getting your caches published and help in finding information.   This was created as a place to help the community and answer their questions.


It is not the place to air your complaints.  Please keep the discussion and questions 'general'.  If not, the forum will be closed and locked.

That being said, I will address some areas:

In reviewing cache locations, we do not use Google Earth (GE) maps to determine park names or property lines.  Saying we do is making an incorrect assumption.

Without going into specifics, we have sophisticated tools that utilize Geographical Information Systems (GIS) information that allow us to accurately see if a cache is located in an area that requires permission, is off-limits, or other areas of concern.  This GIS information is typically provided by government GIS departments.  We do update our records as necessary.  Wherever possible, we have shared this information with the community.  However, some entities have required us to sign a non-disclosure agreement and we cannot share everything.  The names of parks, WMA, , SNA's, State Parks, etc. are provided by the GIS departments, not GE.

As far a WMA's and some parks go, many times their boundaries cross and/or include roads.  If your coordinates fall within an off-limits  boundary, we will not publish a cache there.  You can always check with the MnDNR or the parks department to see if a person in a position of authority is willing to grant permission.  Otherwise, find a new location for your cache.  Getting mad at the reviewers is not the solution, as we are only the messenger. 

We do use GE for some very basic tasks.  The primary one is to verify that the coordinates and location description the hider provided appear to be accurate.  For example:  If we are told the cache is in a picnic pavilion and a GE aerial view shows a Walmart parking lot, we will ask you to recheck the coordinates.

There are numerous resources available from Geocaching HQ to utilize.  One good one is the Geocaching Help Center  From there, you can search numerous topics.  One that may be useful to look at is 5. Submit your cache page  From this link, there are links addressing "Unpublished geocaches may be archived" and how to locate an unpublished cache of yours that was archived. 

In the case of an archived cache, the cache owner can find the GC# in this manner. 

I also will break from the forum guideline and address MN-treker.    I'm assuming this is the GC# MN Fruitcake notes above.  This was a cache you submitted some time ago that fell into a location that Brooklyn Park said (via their GIS maps) was their property.  The actual property name is not relevant, as it may have changed over time.  Brooklyn Park told us it was their property.  If it a  different cache page, please email me with the GC# and I will look into it.

Contrary to what you are saying in this discussion, there was no arguing taking place on my part.  Cache owners are instructed to get permission when placing a cache in some locations.  You then went on to tell me that it wasn't needed.  On August 23, 2013 you sent be an email saying that Brooklyn Park was not allowing a cache to be placed at that location and you were removing it.  I do have your email. 

And all of my disable notes end with the following:
That is the reason the cache page was archived like any others.  Not because "He got fed up with my correct info that did not agree with incorrect info from GOOGLE".  You also told me the cache was being removed. 
 
If there are additional questions, one of us will be happy to answer them as best we can.  If you only want to post personal complaints, please find another outlet other than the MnGCA or this forum will be closed.