Team Microdot

I'd have kept that quiet if I were you. I expect that one will now set alarm bells ringing in HQ.

I'm confused too, about your apparent compulsion to self-appoint as moderator of this thread, but on the subject of your confusion I'll try to help. The title of the thread is 'Not family friendly'. It need not convey the entire content of the thread and nor could it. To expect that is to be disappointed. The cache was archived on the basis of a claim that the cache was not family friendly, which I disagree with. I claim that caches on or around playgrounds are definitely not family friendly and that that is the most likely reason that Groundspeak guidelines explicitly forbid them. Yet those caches are published and allowed to persist and I cannot help but wonder how and why that's allowed to happen, especially when a cache outside a store with an international high street presence is forcibly archived. I hope that helps with clarity.

Caches which very obviously contravene the guidelines when published and are allowed to persist while caches which don't contravene any guidelines are unceremoniously archived is very much on topic thanks. ETA especially when the caches an question are on or around children's playgrounds.

I've seen them put out by middle-aged men. One even highlights the particular playground being aimed specifically at younger children.

Was it easier to spot when the weather was cold?

The customer's always right. You're just a CO, so you're always wrong. Unless you're placing a cache where there's a real danger of life-changing injuries or even death - and then the sky is the limit. The real test would be to leave a pair of pants at such a cache and see if it gets archived or not. Kinda' like irresistable force meets immovable object or fixing a piece of toast buttered side up to the back of a cat to test which way up it lands.

I don't even see that filter option

Yep. I really have to wonder why Groundspeak chose to archive it in the first place on the basis of a single, probably highly exaggerated complaint. Really sucks.

Assuming you're referring to Personal Cache Notes, I'm not aware of any way to isolate those - not even using a pocket query.

Went shopping today. Took a photograph to show how there's absolutely no need to enter the store to see the rock.

I think the post you're responding to suggests not all reviewers would follow your chosen course of action. ETA - it also seems that there are places where a person can go beyond suggestion (which itself is very subjective and can be interpreted to suit particular agendas) all the way to recommendation and still have the cache published.

I assume you're alluding to reviewers seemingly ignoring guidelines completely?

Indeed. I understand it too. Cache with risk of death = totally worth it Cache with risk of seeing pants / subject of one complaint over the course of two years = not worth tuppence

Yeah - that's the point. Someone could fall to their death? Meh. Someone might see a pair of pants? Stop at all costs!

Yes - we are all guessing because that's all we're allowed to do. If the wording of Groundspeak's last communication was a reflection of UnhappyCacher's words it was rather more extreme than that. I rather suspect it was laid on with a large trowel.

Let's remember that the reviewer's requirements for unarchiving the cache had nothing to do with the so-called family friendliness. Rather the issue reverted back to the fact the rock in question was inside the perimeter of the store and this - in the reviewer's opinion - violated commercial guidelines even though there was no requirement whatsoever to enter the store. It was Groundspeak who cited family friendliness as their reason for archiving the cache. The question of the gulf between these two reaasons remains unexplained.

The caches I mentioned earlier very much violated the guidelines on the day they were published just as much as they continue to do so today. I was thinking about the concept of family friendly this morning and I can't quite wrap my head around what it means in the context of geocaching. As a simple example - is a cache close to the top of a quarry face where there's a real risk of serious injury or even death family friendly? It strikes me as odd that the guidlines treat these sorts of caches with very real dangers as family friendly while at the same time treating the possibility of seeing a pair of pants as something that must be stamped out at all costs ?

To what end?

But that doesn't matter. The point is that those caches clearly violate the guidelines now just as they did on the day(s) they were published. And that's not right.

Well it didn't - not really. I liked it much better as it was. But I wasn't given that option. Because one person complained.

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between that specific store and the mall in general in terms of calling it "go inside a business". But don't bring that up to the reviewer or the whole cache will be invalidated. If you care to check the cache page now that it's available again you'll see (and I am now reminded) that I spent 18 months just thinking about HOW I could stage an EarthCache in this location that complied with commercial guidelines and thus had official blessing. I couldn't really see how it would work but dialogue with the reviewer convinced me that it was possible - and so I pressed on and achieved something that gave me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction. I guess the distinction is that the mall doesn't sell anything - it just rents out premises and provides services to them.

Sorry bruce - I don't follow.

I love you Mark In a purely platonic, manly, brotherly sort of way of course If the most recent communication I had from Groundspeak included wording from the original complaint I'd say it was more than colourful. There's not much shocks me but I'm still reeling from that one. What I'm telling myself though is that Groundspeak haven't allowed themselves to be swayed by colourful language and that their professional view is based on knowing the style and purpose of the store and of the products sold there and concluding for themselves that they consider said store not family friendly. While I disagree with their assertions here I have to give them credit for, by allowing the cache to be unarchived again, taking what might be considered a balanced approach. The sad thing of course is that there are no winners here - only losers.

I don't think consistency has anything to do with it. The guidelines forbid caches in or around schools, on or around children's playgrounds and on or around electricity substations. I could take you to examples of all three. In fact I could take you round a series dedicated to the third.

Everyone involved has made it painfully clear that there's no reasoning with them on that particular aspect - so I've opted to give up trying so that new people can at least continue to enjoy what's left.