Internet Cave Locations

[Scott McCrea]

I don't know if posting cave locations on the internet is right or wrong, legal or illegal, good or bad. But, one thing is for sure, it is lazy. That's right. LAZY! Posting cave locations on the internet is lazy.

Most of the cavers I know have spent years ridgewalking, researching, nurturing relationships, meeting people, doing good deeds, networking, sacrificing, learning and teaching in order to find and gain access to caves. All this effort truly defines what makes cavers so special. Posting locations on the internet allows people to be lazy and skip these steps.

[John Lovaas]

But I see the spread of hi-speed internet access, GIS, satellite imagery, and a more global focus on caves and karsts management all making such by-laws more and more difficult to uphold.

Hi Dane-

I've seen GIS mentioned in this context before and would just like to speak to it a bit.

GIS, like any software, are useless without data. And cave entrance data for GIS would consist, at minimum, of a 3 column table- the cave's name, and the X and Y coordinates.

And what is that? Nothing more than a list of locations, which you don't need GIS software to utilize. Just punch the numbers into a GPS unit, or simpler yet- plot it on a paper topo, and off you go.

So if there is a issue with GIS and cave locations, it is the responsible use and control of the data- and that data is in a format that cave surveys have used for decades. Ultimately GIS lets you plot the location on a computer screen, rather than a paper topo.

As to aerial imagery- well, it's always been available, and has often been free, or really inexpensive(at least here in the Midwest) - it was just that you needed to know where to get it. Instead of searching directories and making telephone calls, we Google it in a minute.

And even then- is it that much of an aid to locating caves? I'm thinking of the Monroe County Sinkhole Plain east of St. Louis- you've got 75-100 sinkholes per square mile- which sinkhole has the cave entrance?

So I don't see the technology as the issue, but the data itself- and the responsible management and control thereof.

You folks in Colorado, have fun. Yikes.

[Dane]

That's a good point Scott, and living where I do and caving with the folks I cave with, I certainly understand and appreciate your view. In regards to individuals, many new cavers are just looking for an easy list of cave locations and maps - period.

And John, you are right - technology is just technology and is completely dependant on your data. But the technology is becoming more affordable, more user-friendly, and more common.

But others' efforts are not necessarily always a result of lazy or of nefarious intent.

There have been links and discussions on here concerning the cataloging of cave locations/mapping/etc on a global basis.
At some point the USGS, NSS, et. al will have to decide if they are going to play ball with the rest of the world or try to soldier on with their collective heads in the sand.

Change is coming.

Not a judgment call - only pointing out that change is inevitable, and you can either try to manage it or you let it manage you.

[Marlatt]

Rick Rhinehart's characterization of last night's survey meeting is remarkably disingenuous and hypocritical, and I feel that I must respond to clarify the record.

The Survey voted to require a signed confidentiality agreement and a vote of the Survey representatives for any access to the CCS files. This is a landmark change from the current "open" status of the files, and it is notable that no such restrictions had previously been placed on file access even following the "Caves of Colorado" debacle. The clear consensus of the discussion surrounding this measure was that information in the CCS files must be protected from mass distribution.

The Survey did not support an amendment requiring all representatives to sign a confidentiality agreement. However, this was rejected NOT in support of the release of sensitive information, but because Colorado Cave Survey meetings have always been open to any and all cavers wishing to attend; the Survey has never supported closed, secret meetings. Consequently, such a requirement would in no way guarantee that sensitive information would remain within the Survey. Indeed, it could have had the unintended consequence of lending an incorrect sense of security to CCS meetings. Additionally, since CCS representatives do not have special access to the CCS files, any representatives wanting to see the files will have to sign a confidentiality agreement in any event. Finally, it is extremely rare for cave locations to be openly discussed during Survey meetings.

Note that at no time did the Survey go on record with "approval of posting public and privately-owned cave locations on the Internet." That is not simply inaccurate, it is an outright untruth, and I am frankly surprised at Rick's obvious dishonesty! The comments made by the majority of the representatives present expressed a clear understanding of the need to restrict access to sensitive cave data, and the decisions made by the Survey strongly enhance the protection given to cave and karst data entrusted to the Survey.

While the Survey declined to support a motion which was essentially designed to ban Dan Casteralli, I believe that it did so not in support of his website, but in recognition that the motion was poorly conceived, ambiguous and would probably prove ineffective in any event. Had this proposal been approved, it would nevertheless have required the approval of 2/3 of the Grottos prior to becoming enforceable. I (and the majority of the Survey) strongly condemn the indiscriminate dissemination of cave location data, and do not in any sense support the website in question. However, his website exists in large part due to actions like this. I believe that the Survey was absolutely correct in its revocation of Donald's motion.

Rick Rhinehart has a long history of involvement with Colorado caving and with the Colorado Cave Survey. I expect better.

Stuart Marlatt
Chair, Colorado Cave Survey

[Floyd Collins]

[DELETED PER DAN SULLIVAN AND DAN CASTELLARI]

[Marlatt]

Perhaps you were at a different meeing, Rick.

[John Lovaas]

And John, you are right - technology is just technology and is completely dependant on your data. But the technology is becoming more affordable, more user-friendly, and more common.

But the simplest cave location technology of all is a topo map and a list of locations. Always has been, always will be.

There have been links and discussions on here concerning the cataloging of cave locations/mapping/etc on a global basis.
At some point the USGS, NSS, et. al will have to decide if they are going to play ball with the rest of the world or try to soldier on with their collective heads in the sand.

I've heard this before, and thought I'd see what the UIS had to say about cave locations. I think the UIS would qualify as an international arbiter of what is good and bad about cave locations. This is from a working draft located at-

http://www.uisic.uis-speleo.org/exchange/atendefn.html

Having coarse co-ordinates available allows publication of
an approximate location to enable spatial searches and reports
without revealing the exact location. This field chooses the coarse
precision which is suitable for coarse lat/longs in this country.
Example:
In Australia the precision used is 0.0833 degrees (5 minutes).

5 minutes of arc is around 6 miles at the equator. So when folks talk about international cave databases, just how accurate are the coordinates? If you are placing the cave entrance within a 144 square mile area, I think that is a database that is pretty safe to share.

It reminds me of a cave location discussion on another forum. There was some debate about a Nature Conservancy map that supposedly showed cave locations in northwest Arkansas. I downloaded the map, and it turned out to be a springshed delineation map. The scale on the map was about 20 miles to the inch, and some of the springsheds appeared to be in the range of 50 square miles in size. No other karst features were noted on the map.

If I may be allowed a moment of snarkiness- give me a map illustrating 50 square miles of northwest Arkansas and a dart. Upon throwing the dart, I'll bet I've defined a point that is within a mile or two of a cave. Har.

[Phil Winkler]

I've been scrounging out cave locations one way or the other since I was about 15. If you are curious you will find them. Still, there are many conservation minded folks who still subscribe to the technique of keeping them secret which I find curious. The fact is that most people do not want to crawl into a hole in the ground, get muddy, wet, dirty, etc., etc.

Vandalization is another problem, but how many remote caves get vandalized? Most of the ones I've seen in the US are pretty easily accessed and most vandals are likely too lazy to put much effort into reaching more remote caves.

I also remember the heated discussions when Caves of Colorado was published: should it be sold in the NSS Bookstore or not? I used to have a copy, too. Is it a collector's item now, I wonder?

Anyway, I hope all of you can avoid any personal attacks and stick to the merits of the topic. I suppose someone was taking minutes at that meeting, too, so it should all come out in the wash eventually.

[NZcaver]

I don't know if posting cave locations on the internet is right or wrong, legal or illegal, good or bad. But, one thing is for sure, it is lazy. That's right. LAZY! Posting cave locations on the internet is lazy.

Wait a minute - do you mean to say posting locations is lazy?? Won't disagree with you there. Lazy just like scooping booty, not writing trip reports, not sharing details of cave expeditions, not encouraging new cavers...

Most of the cavers I know have spent years ridgewalking, researching, nurturing relationships, meeting people, doing good deeds, networking, sacrificing, learning and teaching in order to find and gain access to caves. All this effort truly defines what makes cavers so special. Posting locations on the internet allows people to be lazy and skip these steps.

Good point. Not to detract from this, but one side effect of the joy of finding, surveying, and keeping secret the location of a cave is that others may do the same - resulting in several "discoveries" of the same cave, resulting in different names and hundreds of man-hours of duplicated survey efforts. It happens.


P.S. Dane - I thought you made some excellent points in your first post of the day.

P.P.S. It seems all is not well in Colorado...

[caverdan]

P.P.S. It seems all is not well in Colorado...

It appears Rick would like everyone to think that. I too must of attended a different meeting than Rick........buttttttt...... I swear that was him sitting in the corner.

Last night we changed one word and removed one sentence from the three proposed changes to the constitution. The sentence we removed was "All members of the CCS must sign the same confidentiality agreement required for access to the cave survey files as described in the Philosophy and Operation of the CCS." (Members being grotto reps, grotto chairs, and CCS officers.)

We left in "Being a member of the survey does not automatically grant you access to part or all of the cave survey files"

My arguement was why should we have to sign an agreement to attend a meeting that is open to the public to attend? We are as reps, suppose to go back to our grotto meetings and discuss what went on in the meeting. Of coarse grotto meetings are open to the public too. Myself and others decided to remove that sentence since the meetings are suppose to be open to the public anyways. All of us (including Dan) agreed that the rest of the proposal was needed and probably should have been in place a long time ago. Since I joined the survey a few years ago, our total focus has been on cave management (and everything but collecting survey files). In fact..........we basically don't have much in the way of cave survey files............so the whole thing is kind of a moot point. What Carl and Stuart are trying to do is make a starting point for us to start recollecting data like other states do. That's basically what was proposed last night for us to take back to our grottos for further discussion.

I'm proud to say that not one grotto chair or grotto rep supported Donald and Ricks proposed change to ban Dan from the SSC. It was shot down with some heated comments from their corner. All in all, I thought the meeting ended on a positive note?

In fact......I'd go as far as to say.......all but two of us took big steps in learning how to play in the same sandbox..........without throwing sand.
Kudos to both Carl and Stu for putting on a most excellent meeting and maintaining "control of the crowd."

Sorry, Stuart, but I reported the facts of the meeting as I saw them. This information will be published in the forthcoming edition of Rocky Mountain Caving, Colorado's state caving publication

Right there it is folks. Rick's sniffing for a story for his magazine. Need I say more?

I also remember the heated discussions when Caves of Colorado was published: should it be sold in the NSS Bookstore or not? I used to have a copy, too. Is it a collector's item now, I wonder?

They are selling for $200.00 plus at local grotto auctions.

I suppose someone was taking minutes at that meeting, too, so it should all come out in the wash eventually.

Mike Frazier took notes. Sooner or later they will be posted on the Colorado Cave Survey web site. Really, we aren't holding secret meetings.....Seriously....... Ya'll are invited to the next one. I believe the plan is to hold it in Glenwood Springs at Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park. This is your chance to get a birds eye view of the 2011 convention site from the top of Iron Mountain. There's a roller coaster ride.... and a big swing.....and a cave to tour......and a restaurant.......and a free gondoula ride to get to the meeting......then we head to the hot springs pool......stop by the brewery for a brew or two......

[Vader]

The Colorado Cave Survey of the National Speleological Society has reversed its earlier position of restricting data regarding cave locations. At the board's regular spring meeting on May 14, the board came out in favor of allowing cave locations to be included in popular public media such as published guides like Lloyd Parris'es 1973 book, "Caves of Colorado" and a Colorado Internet cave location website.

Were you at the same meeting I was at Rick? I know I saw you there, But I don't remember things that way. Your post reminds me of when my kids try to tell on each other. Maybe you're not happy, but you are telling others a flat out lie just to get a rise out of them.

Dan Castellari
Colorado Western slope grotto cave survey rep.
NSS # 53016

[Wayne Harrison]

Forum Administrator Note: Longtime NSS member Floyd Collins, aka Richard Rhinehart, has requested that his account here be deleted as a result of the controversy over his post about this week's Colorado Cave Survey meeting. He has already self-deleted his posts on this subject here. Apparently he will still be moderating the Colorado Caves and Caving Forum, although he has deleted his posts there as well regarding the Colorado Cave Survey meeting.

We await a coming issue of Rocky Mountain Caving to see how he will handle the article on the CCS meeting that he said he would write.

I have inactivated his account, per his request.

[Dane]

Thanks Wayne.
I'm sorry to hear that, regardless of the reason.

One of the subjects touched on in this thread was First Amendment Rights, and right/wrong/incorrect, I hate to see anyone decide to give up such a lively venue for exploring those rights, although I guess even that decision sends a message of sorts.

Thanks again for the update.

[Wayne Harrison]

Carl Bern, the CCS rep from Front Range Grotto posted the following on the Colorado Caving forum regarding this week's Colorado Cave Survey meeting. His report on the meeting is in agreement with Stuart and both Dan's accounts:

I did not log onto the board yesterday, so I missed the fireworks. Now they're gone.

The three amendments that I proposed to the CCS constitution were voted on and approved at the meeting Monday night. The confidentiality amendment was edited so that members of the CCS do NOT have to sign an agreement. After hearing the opinions of other cavers I volunteered and endorsed this edit for several reasons.

First, is that the CCS meetings are open to everyone and cave locations are not discussed so there is little to protect from that point of view. Second, some cavers thought it gave the impression (right or wrong) that there was a lot of secret business going on at the meetings. This is not so.

Finally, the real goal of the amendment is to provide a protection mechanism for the CCS files. I believe the amendment will do that, without hampering the primary mission of the CCS. In a nutshell: ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LOOK IN THE CCS FILES WILL HAVE TO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.

Grottos, please discuss and vote upon these three amendments in your business meetings. When approved by a majority vote in 4 of the 6 grottos, they become part of the constitution. The FRG approved all three last night.

If you have questions or concerns about these amendments, feel free to contact me, Stuart Marlatt, or the CCS reps from your grotto. This is but one step in trying to build a better cave survey, input from the community is ecouraged.

[Squirrel Bait]

LAZY! Posting cave locations on the internet is lazy.

From my narrowly opened eyes not all below ground is dead. 6 feet or more it's a place I'd like to continue seeing things others rarely do.