CacheDrone

Very surprised to hear about this since Canada just set a new National Park policy on Geocaching Parks Canada Geocaching policy During the discussions that were held with representatives from across the country including Parks Canada staff and representatives from many geocaching clubs, there was an indication from the parks staff that they had been talking to the US NPS. This would seem to be contrary to what I was told by attendees of that policy creation meeting. Hopefully you guys can turn this around like we did. Our first policy was a totally ban on geocaching too but with work we can enjoy it again. It would be great if the same was true for NPS in the US.

Dead tree or not, this should not be encouraged, it is defacement of property. Really C-T ??? Aside from the fact that I'd NEVER find such a cache...I'm astounded to learn that it's against the rules??? How is it "defacement of property"? How is this different from pulling rotting wood out of a stump, placing the container inside (a REAL cache container too..none of this micro garbage!) and then covering it up with bits of forest flotsam? Did I miss a tongue-in-cheek smiley somewhere? Wouldn't be the first time! This would be along the same lines of digging a hole with a shovel or just moving aside some forest flotsam. If you are in the woods with power tools drilling holes, how would that look to anyone viewing this? What also stops the next cacher thinking this is a great idea and drilling a live tree, its been done. A drill bit is a "pointy" object digging into a tree. Like CT said and the guidelines quoted This means you cannot use any fastener to attach a geocache to anything, or drill holes or cut or other tool like actions. While the above is a generic way of expressing the idea the full version in my eyes is more like this: You may not use any tools to create a hiding place at the listing coordinates or any stages of a geocache. You can only use your hands to place a geocache. You may create a container for your geocache at home like a birdhouse that you will hang in a tree from a loop around a branch. At the geocache site it must be all done by hand, no tools of any kind. Use of tools is defacement of public or private property. Of course there are some exceptions like using wire cutters to trim the loop you make or needle nose pliers to make nice twists in the wire. Neither of these would damage any natural or man-made objects.

I've been a reviewer for nearly 6 months, but since they have not provided me with a job description yet I spend my time posting useless thoughts in our super secret laboratory. I had no idea there was something that I was supposed to be doing. {checking into this 'other activity'} HOLY CRAP!!! I'm gonna be a little busy since there's a lot in there! If only there was a "Publish All" button.

Unfortunatly the Letterbox Hybrid is a meaningless cache type under the current guidelines. This is simply not true. LBH is different from the other three types of physical hides but often players either miss the GPS usage aspect or create the offsets in ways that makes it more of a multi or unknown class for listing. My guess is that a proper LBH is one of the hardest cache types to either get listed or understand the subtle differences from the other types of listings. When they are done right though they can be very enjoyable. Often players create multi-caches and submit them as unknown/puzzle/mystery caches. That doesn't mean that multi-caches are also meaningless. It means we need to show the differences to avoid players using the wrong type. Sometimes that is by reviewers pointing out how a listing needs to be updated to meet the requirements for a certain type.

Trying to not to be involved in the recent mud-slinging that I am hoping has calmed down but I would like to point out that the issue related to the 1100 logs that need to be edited was not a commercial issue. It was an agenda issue. When it comes to the Listing Guidelines and all of the other documents on the Site, including but not limited to www.geocaching.com, operated by Groundspeak inc. it can be said that they are a framework for conduct both for the corporation of Groundspeak and also for those that use any of the publishing tools on the Site. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but every document has been intentionally written to be adaptable based on current situations. I would be very surprised if everyone wanted to have Groundspeak operate the Site as a dictatorship with exacting rules that must be adhered to without exception. Although Cache-Tech has already addressed the geocaches that were placed inside some park that requires an admission fee I'm not sure how to describe the difference between paying to enter Algonquin Provincial Park and entering Paramount Canada's Wonderland. But I would say that the former is a not-for-profit and the later is a for-profit, and that is the key difference from my reviewer perspective. But I agree that in Ontario Parks was to start placing caches in an effort to draw people into their parks and that would require geocachers to pay an admission fee, I would not publish those caches since they would be commercial in design. However, if Ontario Parks was to once allow geocaching and then regular geocachers started placing geocaches with permission inside Ontario Parks locations that require an entry fee then I would publish them. FWIW, if I didn't allow Ontario Parks to place caches on their own property because I perceive them as commercial placements, they could request an exception from Groundspeak and if it was granted then I would publish them. I do not take kindly to accounts being created to attract people to their facilities in order to possibly gain some commercial benefit even if it is indirectly created.

The "Terms of Use" can be found at the bottom of pages on www.geocaching.com and the term 'Site' applies to all aspects. Section 4 says "Publishing Tools and Forums" so it applies to both. Copy this into a browser to see the image http://img.geocaching.com/cache/e391ed6c-d...9ffd945cf57.jpg Link fixed

I can guarantee that the last one was changed after being listed. That one isn't going to stay that way long. The second one has been changed from the way the description reads. Just because you see something on a cache page doesn't mean it was listed exactly as you see it. This has been proven over and over. Still, it is apples and oranges. Looking at those cache owners, their logs on found caches don't scream a Christian agenda. Every one of PB's logs on caches screamed his agenda. Apples and oranges. No Mtn... apples and apples. An agenda is an agenda. If it's wrong in the log, it's wrong on the cache page. In fact, it's WORSE on the cache page because logs get buried after 5 or so finds. If the rule is that you don't flog an agenda, that's cool. The rule should be enforced consistently. If the rule isn't going to be applied consistently, then it should be dropped. If those caches were changed after being listed, that's fine. Consider them officially complained about, and I ask that the rules on such matters please be enforced with the same zeal that is being shown toward Plasma-boy. I'll probably have a few more to report in the next while. I think that's a fair request. And make no mistake - I think you are absolutely correct about his tag promoting an agenda, and I do think he should stop using it... but to centre him out and ask him to do something you're not willing to do (manually change 1000 logs, when a simple "stop using that tag" and "you must edit any logs that a cache owner requests to be edited" would suffice) when there are obvious cache page violations that can be found with simple searches of caches strikes me as highly unfair. From a pure optics point of view, it might look better just to say "yes, we're being unfair but that's the way it is" rather than try and couch it. I guess my point is that I do find that rules are not enforced consistently by gc.com, and that it sometimes appears that many agenda are winked at or even allowed. As I'm trying to point out here, I don't see an uproar over obvious Christian agenda on CACHE PAGES, but someone clearly got in a snit about log contents. To me, that's a cart-before-the-horse situation. Or maybe it's just that these rules are only enforced when someone complains? In that case, the real rule is some kind of "tyranny of the minority" thing where we all have to be careful of the most unreasonably sensitive person who might complain. The best part is that I'm not even allowed to give blood because I passed out once while they drew 8 vials for a test. Agenda being what it is I would agree with you that this is apples and apples. The 'rule' is applied equally. If it isn't then it is those that post it initially that cause the inconsistency. Cause and Effect right? I agree like before that personal agenda has no business being anywhere on a cache page, in the description or logs. mtn-man did not center out anyone in this. If anything the topic started with the person that was affected centering themselves out to raise awareness of what had happened. When it comes to consistency I am not seeing what point that is trying to be made. When we are made aware of something it gets addressed, plain and simple. During review of geocaches we catch all kinds of guideline items like agenda and they are cleared up either by the owner and the reviewer or the appeals department. We reviewers are not log police. When another player brings something to a reviewer or Groundspeak it is then taken care of in a positive or negative way depending. What mtn-man is saying is that people need to speak up for action to be taken. That creates the consistency you speak of. We are reasonably consistent about handling complaints. From the Groundspeak Terms of Use (bolding and colour added for emphasis)

This is getting off topic. The short version is that an actual paid employee of Groundspeak has stated that including a personal agenda statement is not permitted in cache logs. This item has been brought to the forums and now everyone that takes the time to read the forums should at least be aware that having statements like those or any variation on other like themes is not permitted. There are many clever people in geocaching and maybe one of them could provide a suggestion or script that would remove the parts of the tagline for Plasma Boy. That would at least resolve this problem for everyone. As for dealing with violations after publication of the listing, the only method is from people reporting the problem to their local reviewer. That is the system that is in place. Like others have said, I would like to trust players to not make changes that reflect badly on the game after a reviewer took the time to make sure the listing was okay. It might seem funny but it only hurts the game in the end.

Personal agenda has no place in geocaching no matter where it is on a cache listing. The guidelines cover agenda quite well and it is the responsibility of the geocache owner to monitor the logs and act accordingly. That could be extended to requiring geocache owners to be required to remove logs that solicit an agenda of any kind since they violate the guidelines if you consider it that far. That is not to say that Groundspeak should turn around and place the blame on the geocache owners. When Groundspeak authorizes a commercial aspect like the previously pointed out travel bugs, it is their right to do so since the own and operate the company. They determine what is best for the company and those that use their services. This form of solicitation does not benefit Groundspeak and may offend some of its clients. There seems to be no reason to have such a tag line unless it is to promote a personal agenda, and that is not what geocaching is about.

Guidelines get longer when players continue to act in ways that are detrimental to the activity. If players used this so-called 'common sense' then the guidelines would not have been created. Thank you for giving me something worthy of spending my first ever forum post as a volunteer Groundspeak reviewer to post about.