Commercial Caches, One More Time!

[tossedsalad]

I am making another run at getting Shabby Four approved with the final stage inside a coffee shop. I won't go into all the details, but it seems like I should be able to get this one approved if I ring the right bells. I just don't know what the right bells are.

 

There are any number of caches that seem to violate the commercial guidelines. The guidelines even say that they are willing to make exceptions. But they don't say what they will base an exception on.

 

Here are some pretty commercial examples...

 

Tim Horton's

 

Krispy Kreme

 

But the big diffference is that they are not *inside* the building like Shabby Four. On the other hand, Shabby Four has no overt commercializm as these clearly do. Shabby Four does not suggest that you try the coffee and see how you like it.

 

I just don't get it...

 

Any suggestions on how to ring the bells to get this approved?

[+StarBrand]

Best suggestion: Does it HAVE TO be inside the shop??

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

Wow!! now that you brought thos other one's to attention they should get archived. clear violation of the rule's. as for you i would suggest moving outside the cache or if you can't do that make sure you don't say something like try the coffee it's good. Tell the approver that this is not a commercial thingy.

[tossedsalad]

It has to be inside if it is going to be anything other than a very small or micro cache. This is downtown and there is just no place to put a regular size cache.

 

I already did my homework and made no mention at all of it being inside a *business*. I just said it is indoors but that my GPS worked ok there.

 

I think it is a great place to enjoy the final stage of a multicache and go through the stash. You don't have to buy anything and the workers ignore you until you come up to the counter. Heck, there are homeless people who hang out there late at night since it is open 24/7.

 

I've sent off a request to gc.com to allow this cache. But unless I can find the right thing to say, I don't think it will be approved.

[+wimseyguy]

I could give you examples of gallon jars, two quart rubbermaid containers and tupperwares sie size of shoeboxes, even ammo cans that are hidden in busy urban areas, but then I would have to kill you.

 

Seriously, get creative with your cammo technique, or locate it a few blocks away in a nice park. How nice a business is this if they allow urban outdoorsmen to sleep at the tables intended for customers?

Stop being so worried about 'saying the right thing' ,and just do the right thing.

 

PS I forgot to mention that from the examples quoted it seem perfectly clear that only donut shops will get approved as commercial caches inside a business.

Silly me, I thought it took chocolate.

Edited September 15, 2005 by wimseyguy

[+Renegade Knight]

The right bells are to ask TPTB. Your friendly neighborhood approver can't approve your cache without specific permission from TPTB.

[Keystone]

Please don't bother pointing to those caches. The reviewers are well aware of them from past commercial cache threads. I'll point you to this paragraph from the guidelines:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

I will never knowingly publish a cache that is placed *inside* a commercial establishment unless the owner tells me that they've obtained permission from Groundspeak (meaning Seattle, not me). If there's valid grounds for an exception, I might discuss that with the other reviewers. Thousands of long-lived urban caches tell me that "there's no other place to hide a cache" doesn't constitute valid grounds.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Keystone

[+BlueDeuce]

Here's a thought, don't put it inside a business.

[tossedsalad]

I tried this once before and I am still amazed at the irrelevant replies I get. Even the post from Keystone makes it clear that he does not understand why I posted. I did not say, "this cache was approved, so my cache should be approved". I am asking for help in understanding why some commercial caches get approved and others don't. If there exist some "valid grounds for an exception", then what might those grounds be? Scoffing at the idea that there is no place to place a regular cache outside this business is not a reply, it is just avoiding the issue. I have seen the location, you have not. I'm not saying there is no place in all of Frederick to put a regular cache, I am saying there is no place to put one around here.

 

To Renegade Knight, I already said that I have asked gc.com to approve this. Actually, I did that the last time I tried this and never got a reply. The local reviewer even said he would take it to their internal forum to discuss among the reviewers, but I never heard back.

 

The most frustrating part is that even Jeremy says that commercial caches are not "banned", they just need special permission. But I have never been given any actual info about what to do to make a cache more likely to be approved.

 

I won't bother to comment on BlueDeuce's post.

 

So far this thread has gone just like the others I have read. I was hoping to hear from someone who could actually answer the question about what makes a commercial cache acceptable.

[+Renegade Knight]

First. The other caches don't have a bearing on your cache. They jumped through the same hoops that you have to. If they didn't they got lucky.

 

Second. Even though you haven't got an answer from Groundspeak, they are the ones that you have to talk to. Try again. Groundspeak is not good at answering all the questions they get. I've got inquiries in that are months old. However that's your one and only option.

 

The answer to your question as to what makes a commercial cache acceptable can only be provided by Groundspeak. Even approvers who have a better idea than forum regulars can only speculate. Simple as it was I gave you the true answer. So did Keystone. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+JohnnyVegas]

From the guidelines

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

 

I have found caches in commercial bussiness, but it was made quite clear in the cache discription that no purchase was required. It was also made quite clear that I could ask the staff were the cache was. If you can show ground speak that no purchase is required and that you have permission you may be able to place the cache.

[tossedsalad]

Renegade, just because you don't have any information, doesn't mean no one else does. Maybe the ones who have had commercial caches approved can answer or maybe the ones who make the decision will reply!? I have seen Jeremy reply on this topic before.

 

As I said before, I HAVE ALREADY ASKED GC.COM. Now I am waiting for their answer. But I don't know if I will hear from them in a week or a year. So I am trying to get what little info I can. Please bear with me. Is that alright?

[tossedsalad]

From the guidelines

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

 

I have found caches in commercial bussiness, but it was made quite clear in the cache discription that no purchase was required. It was also made quite clear that I could ask the staff were the cache was. If you can show ground speak that no purchase is required and that you have permission you may be able to place the cache.

Can you provide links to these caches? I would like to contact the owners.

[+Sagefox]

As I said before, I HAVE ALREADY ASKED GC.COM. Now I am waiting for their answer. But I don't know if I will hear from them in a week or a year. So I am trying to get what little info I can. Please bear with me. Is that alright?

Asking might be the "kiss of death" for you. We never used to "ask". Why would anyone do that? We just submitted and made our best case.

 

Figure out a way that YOU think it might work, that an approver would feel comfortable that it is not a shameless plug for the business, and then post it. Don't bring it here to be chopped into pieces!

 

I just archived our Cafe Cache (for site specific reasons) after an almost three year run. It was inside a coffeehouse on a game shelf and the owners loved it. AND... they did not need ANY new business that the cache might generate. They have tons of eclectic knick-knacks and a geocache fit in perfectly. We modeled this cache after the fun Café Cache in Madison, WI that also was not used to promote a business.

 

My suggestion: Close this threat and spend the time figuring out how a cache inside a business is NOT promoting that business and write a long note in the approver section of your cache page.

 

I hope you do this because people LOVE caches inside buildings.

[tossedsalad]

As I said before, I HAVE ALREADY ASKED GC.COM.  Now I am waiting for their answer.  But I don't know if I will hear from them in a week or a year.  So I am trying to get what little info I can.  Please bear with me.  Is that alright?

Asking might be the "kiss of death" for you. We never used to "ask". Why would anyone do that? We just submitted and made our best case.

 

Figure out a way that YOU think it might work, that an approver would feel comfortable that it is not a shameless plug for the business, and then post it. Don't bring it here to be chopped into pieces!

 

I just archived our Cafe Cache (for site specific reasons) after an almost three year run. It was inside a coffeehouse on a game shelf and the owners loved it. AND... they did not need ANY new business that the cache might generate. They have tons of eclectic knick-knacks and a geocache fit in perfectly. We modeled this cache after the fun Café Cache in Madison, WI that also was not used to promote a business.

 

My suggestion: Close this threat and spend the time figuring out how a cache inside a business is NOT promoting that business and write a long note in the approver section of your cache page.

 

I hope you do this because people LOVE caches inside buildings.

 

I agree, I think this would be a really great cache. It would be very similar to yours. But the rules have tightened up a lot and yours would not be approved now, I expect. Even so, can you tell me what you said to get yours approved?

 

I already posted the cache some four months ago. I exchanged a lot of messages with the reviewer and it came down to

 

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance

 

2) I should have asked gc.com first.

 

This time I felt it would be useful to construct the cache page, but not activate it. Then I wrote the reviewer, who had since changed. The new reviewer also said they could not approve the cache and that I should contact gc.com for permission. I asked for advice on what was considered when making exceptions and was told they did not know.

 

So I am at the point of having to ask since nothing else has worked. As to figuring out how the cache is not promoting a business, I've done everything I can think of. Heck, the first reviewer started accusing me of intentionally wanting to promote the business just because I kept pursuing the effort. Kind of a Catch-22. If you stop asking, then you have no intent (and don't get the cache because you stopped asking), but if you keep asking, you must be intentionally promoting the business (and don't get the cache because it is blatantly commercial).

 

As Pooh would say, "Oh, bother!"

[+AtoZ]

I tried this once before and I am still amazed at the irrelevant replies I get. Even the post from Keystone makes it clear that he does not understand why I posted. I did not say, "this cache was approved, so my cache should be approved". I am asking for help in understanding why some commercial caches get approved and others don't. If there exist some "valid grounds for an exception", then what might those grounds be? Scoffing at the idea that there is no place to place a regular cache outside this business is not a reply, it is just avoiding the issue. I have seen the location, you have not. I'm not saying there is no place in all of Frederick to put a regular cache, I am saying there is no place to put one around here.

 

To Renegade Knight, I already said that I have asked gc.com to approve this. Actually, I did that the last time I tried this and never got a reply. The local reviewer even said he would take it to their internal forum to discuss among the reviewers, but I never heard back.

 

The most frustrating part is that even Jeremy says that commercial caches are not "banned", they just need special permission. But I have never been given any actual info about what to do to make a cache more likely to be approved.

 

I won't bother to comment on BlueDeuce's post.

 

So far this thread has gone just like the others I have read. I was hoping to hear from someone who could actually answer the question about what makes a commercial cache acceptable.

My suggest is your READ Keystone approvers post again. He clearly states why the two cache you mentioned were approved. THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE GUIDELINE WAS IN AFFECT. Secondly he told you what to do if you want to get your vache approved. CONTACT Groundspeak IN SEATTLE AND ASK THEM FOR PERMISSION TO APPTOVE THE CACHE. There no you should be able to follow the avenue to get you cache approved. It is not like there is some secret way it was clearly stated.

cheers

[Keystone]

First. The other caches don't have a bearing on your cache. They jumped through the same hoops that you have to. If they didn't they got lucky.

 

Second. Even though you haven't got an answer from Groundspeak, they are the ones that you have to talk to. Try again. Groundspeak is not good at answering all the questions they get. I've got inquiries in that are months old. However that's your one and only option.

 

The answer to your question as to what makes a commercial cache acceptable can only be provided by Groundspeak. Even approvers who have a better idea than forum regulars can only speculate. Simple as it was I gave you the true answer. So did Keystone. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

This is good advice. A nice summary, RK, thank you.

 

I already posted the cache some four months ago. I exchanged a lot of messages with the reviewer and it came down to

 

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance

 

2) I should have asked gc.com first.

 

This time I felt it would be useful to construct the cache page, but not activate it. Then I wrote the reviewer, who had since changed. The new reviewer also said they could not approve the cache and that I should contact gc.com for permission. I asked for advice on what was considered when making exceptions and was told they did not know.

 

The reviewers acted consistently, which is a good thing. I would have provided exactly the same answer. I cannot tell you what Groundspeak might think about regarding permissible exceptions, because as a volunteer that is beyond my authority. You can either await an answer from them to your e-mail, or perhaps you'll receive an answer here.

 

As for other examples, there are any number of reasons why your online or real-life GeoTravels may take you to a cache inside a business, including:

• The cache was approved with special permission from Groundspeak (that phrase often appears right on the cache page).
  
• The cache is an old one, published long before the reviewers focused so closely on commercial caches.
  
• The text of the cache page was changed after it was reviewed, and nobody has formally complained about it.
  
• It's not obvious from the cache page that the cache is inside a business -- reviewers can only tell so much from looking at maps and aerial photos.
  
• A reviewer exercised his or her judgment and decided that the cache did not intentionally or unintentionally constitute a solicitation -- in other words, they were inconsistent with what was quoted above. Inconsistency happens. Mistakes happen.
  

I hope that this information is helpful.

[+Sagefox]

I already posted the cache some four months ago. I exchanged a lot of messages with the reviewer and it came down to

 

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance.

That message sounds pretty clear to me. I (meaning me, not you) would toss in the towel at that point and move on.

 

As far as information about how our Cafe Cache was approved it would appear to be entirely irrelevant at this point because stronger policies are now in existence.

[tossedsalad]

AtoZ, I don't understand your message. At no time did I say I didn't understand anything Keystone said. I understand perfectly. I am only asking for info on how to get my cache approved. My posts said, "I've sent off a request to gc.com to allow this cache.". Isn't that clear?

 

I get tired of people busting my chops about things that are not relevant or true. If you have nothing to add the conversation, please don't bother posting.

 

I'm not asking about "secrets". I'm not asking about the rules. I understand all of that including the part about asking gc.com for permission. I am asking for any first hand experience anyone might have. Even if you are a reviewer, you don't have to tell me that you don't know anything.

 

As to waiting for an answer from Groundspeak, the first time I tried this I waited some four months and never heard back... not a peep. So I am trying it again and looking for advice on what I did wrong.

 

Please don't reply to this like I am not informed or that I think because other caches were approved mine should be. I understand all the issues of why I need special permission. I am asking about what they consider when making the special exceptions. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know, that's ok; you don't need to reply.

[tossedsalad]

I already posted the cache some four months ago.  I exchanged a lot of messages with the reviewer and it came down to

 

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance.

That message sounds pretty clear to me. I (meaning me, not you) would toss in the towel at that point and move on.

 

As far as information about how our Cafe Cache was approved it would appear to be entirely irrelevant at this point because stronger policies are now in existence.

Team Sagefox, you are one of the few people posting here that might actually be able to help. Sure the rules are tougher now, but any information is helpful. So anything you can tell me can be potentially useful.

 

As to throwing in the towel, I think you misunderstand what I said. The reviewer can not approve this cache, but gc.com can. Was yours approved by the reviewer without having to go through gc.com? If so, then I guess you would not have any useful info.

[+mtn-man]

So far this thread has gone just like the others I have read.  I was hoping to hear from someone who could actually answer the question about what makes a commercial cache acceptable.

The people who will answer you will answer your email and probably not in this topic. I also don't understand why you didn't just bump the old topic you started regarding this frankly.

 

That old topic is informative though. You said:

In Frederick, MD there is a small section of rehabilitated slums and industry that are now antique shops and various types of restaurants. I was thinking of making a multi cache that would lead you around some of the spots that are just plain nice to hang out.

As the reviewer for the original submission months ago, that struck me when you wrote that. To me, that shows the true intention of the cache. You want to feature these businesses so people will go there. That's Waymarking maybe, but it is not geocaching.

[tossedsalad]

In Frederick, MD there is a small section of rehabilitated slums and industry that are now antique shops and various types of restaurants. I was thinking of making a multi cache that would lead you around some of the spots that are just plain nice to hang out.

As the reviewer for the original submission months ago, that struck me when you wrote that. To me, that shows the true intention of the cache. You want to feature these businesses so people will go there. That's Waymarking maybe, but it is not geocaching.

If you place a container with a log book, isn't that geocaching? Aren't a lot of caches placed because it is a really nice location? I don't see why you say this should be a waymark???

 

To be honest (with no intent to be rude) I did not feel like we communicated well in our dialog. I'm not sure where the disconnect was, but I felt like your replies were not responsive to what I was saying. Of course I now understand that I needed to contact gc.com. At that time I did not understand the difference between gc.com and the reviewers. Live and learn

[+rjb43nh]

Tossedsalad, What intrigues me is how you, as an engineer, can ask the same question over a 4-month period, consistantly getting the same answer from absolutely everyone, and yet still persue this quest. Maybe a better use of your time and energy would be to actually change the cache to fit the guidelines rather than trying to find some "loophole" to slide your cache idea through. Painting an elephant red doesn't mean it is no longer an elephant, it's just a red elephant. Try making a major change to make your cache comply with the the rules, guidelines, AND spirit of the game.

 

If the point of your cache is to actually find a cache container and log, why do you feel dragging someone inside a business that you say is frequented by homeless people and used furniture should be a necessary part of your cache?

[+wimseyguy]

If the point of your cache is to actually find a cache container and log, why do you feel dragging someone inside a business that you say is frequented by homeless people and used furniture should be a necessary part of your cache?

I have no objection to looking for a cache in a roomful of used furniture.

[tossedsalad]

Tossedsalad, What intrigues me is how you, as an engineer, can ask the same question over a 4-month period, consistantly getting the same answer from absolutely everyone, and yet still persue this quest. Maybe a better use of your time and energy would be to actually change the cache to fit the guidelines rather than trying to find some "loophole" to slide your cache idea through. Painting an elephant red doesn't mean it is no longer an elephant, it's just a red elephant. Try making a major change to make your cache comply with the the rules, guidelines, AND spirit of the game.

 

If the point of your cache is to actually find a cache container and log, why do you feel dragging someone inside a business that you say is frequented by homeless people and used furniture should be a necessary part of your cache?

 

Your post is an example of what I mean about irrelevant posts. I am not looking to "paint an elephant". If you read the guidelines, they clearly say that they MAKE EXCEPTIONS. I am just trying to get an idea of what they base this decision on. Is that not clear???

 

As to why I want to put the cache inside, didn't you read my posts???

 

"I think it is a great place to enjoy the final stage of a multicache and go through the stash."

 

It is a coffee shop with a very relaxed atmosphere. No pressure to buy. You can come in and pick a game off the shelf and play it with a bunch of your friends and never buy anything! That is why I felt I might be able to get an exception. I came here to ask advice on getting this approved since gc.com has been very unresponsive. But mostly I just get flack. Ok, I guess it is a free forum. But you are just being part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 

BTW, when you say that I keep "getting the same answer from absolutely everyone", that is nonesense. In the original thread I got a significant amount of encouragement from cachers who would love to be able to open this cache at a table and if the felt like it, enjoy a cup or coffee or not. Not that it matters to gc.com, but there are lots of people who like this idea of a cache.

 

As to the spirit of the game, Jeremy said, "I'm just trying to make sure that geocaching.com doesn't start looking like NASCAR." In that spirit I am trying to place a fun cache in an interesting place that has a *minimal* commercial content. I expect this is no more commercial than placing a cache at a newspaper rack or in front of a Cracker Barrel.

[+sept1c_tank]

If the point of your cache is to actually find a cache container and log, why do you feel dragging someone inside a business that you say is frequented by homeless people and used furniture should be a necessary part of your cache?

I have no objection to looking for a cache in a roomful of used furniture.

Yeah, and houseless people are OK, too.

[+Runaround]

since gc.com has been very unresponsive.

Did you ever consider that maybe you have your answer?

[tossedsalad]

since gc.com has been very unresponsive.

Did you ever consider that maybe you have your answer?

I was hoping I would get that kind of answer from some of the people here.

[ju66l3r]

Whether you choose to accept it or not (as would be suggested by your comments), going inside of a business in order to obtain a cache is more commercial than one outside of the business or even on the side of a business' exterior wall.

 

That exact boundary is what is causing you all of this consternation. Therefore, you must meet a higher standard for why Groundspeak should accept this cache as an exception. Those that have gotten Groundspeak approval in the past have been representatives of the company asking for the cache (and my guess is Jeremy also has a closet full of REI gear from the latest commercial stink-up in California ).

 

In other words, you can't foist your cache on the inside of a company that may (or may not) want it. If they want a cache under one of their business' tables, they can ask Groundspeak for the cache. Otherwise, you're going to have to divine another way of pointing to what you consider an interesting cache....waymark it, perhaps?

[+rjb43nh]

tossedsalad-"As to why I want to put the cache inside, didn't you read my posts???"

Yup, read them. I just think that unless you're as myoptic as your avatar, you should also reread the threads you've started on this cache idea and see what people, including approvers, are telling you.

 

As to my repeating tossedsalad's description of the coffee shop and who goes there, remember it was his description, not mine, I just repeated it and asked why it was a necessary part of his cache. Some of my best friends are used furniture.

 

tossedsalad, I leave you to gnaw on this old bone for another 4 months, still getting the same predictable answers and wondering why everyone is part of the problem except the person in front of your mirror.

[+Sagefox]

[As to throwing in the towel, I think you misunderstand what I said. The reviewer can not approve this cache, but gc.com can. Was yours approved by the reviewer without having to go through gc.com? If so, then I guess you would not have any useful info.

Oh, I see the condition more clearly now. Your profile says that you are an engineer and that explains a lot for me. You expect a logical and technical answer and you want the "source" to either prove to you it can't be done or approve your cache. All this conjecture does not "compute" for you as they say.

 

The suggestion of throwing in the towel comes from my reading between the lines. The way the approvers have voiced such strong comments against this type of hide it is clear that it "comes from above" and that "above" is not inclined to grant such a request. That is enough evidence for me to forget about trying place another container inside a building.

 

Our cafe cache was approved by local approvers in 2002. Our cache description hinted but did not clearly state that the container might be inside a building. This was done to plesantly surprise finders rather than to fool the approver. The cache concept was fun for about 100 caching visitors to our rural area. They enjoyed the moment of realization that the container was in plain sight of many muggles and that they could log their finds right in front of everyone. And about as many non cachers signed the log, traded and wrote stories and drew in the logbook. It was good clean fun and doggone it, people liked it!

[+StarBrand]

... If you read the guidelines, they clearly say that they MAKE EXCEPTIONS. I am just trying to get an idea of what they base this decision on. Is that not clear???...

I believe you are looking for a passage of text or solid criteria on which an exemption may be granted. No such text exists (as far as I know). It is simply granted or denied based upon your description, photos, justifications and the "gut" feeling of wether or not your idea is "commercial" (my take on TPTB).

 

I know engineers like all rules written down and set in concrete but it just isn't the case here.

[ScottFla]

Tossedsalad,

 

I like your idea but if it isn't approved, would it be possible to place it nearthat coffee shop with an invitation in the log to go inside and play a game, of course mentioning how absolutely no purchase is necessary?

 

I know I'm not answering your question but your idea seems to neat to not place becasue you may not be able to place the cache inside the building.

[+wimseyguy]

since gc.com has been very unresponsive.

Did you ever consider that maybe you have your answer?

Oooh now he is getting the runaround as well as not getting a response from gc.com.

[tossedsalad]

At this point I am disappointed in this thread. I clearly stated what I was asking for and instead of either helping me with my effort or just remaining silent, many here seem to feel a need to point out what I have already said I am aware of, what they think I am feeling or what they think are my personal inadequacies. Well this is a public forum and the only requirement to post is that you have an email address. So I guess in spite of the fact that geocaching is supposed to be a friendly sport where people help one another, the Internet always provides a lowest common denominator.

 

I am still happy to listen to anyone that has something constructive to say. But I won't bother to reply to posts that just repeat the stuff I already know or that want to make personal remarks.

 

I will say that wimseyguy seems to have a good perspective on this. At least he makes me laugh...

[+teamjack&birdie]

T.S.

Good luck with this, I think it is a great idea. I thought of doing something like this and in fact responded to another of the threads about it. Basically I got the run around and some childish lip from TPTB (the main guy). I am beginning to think that it is more about TPTB being so afraid someone other than them might make a buck off geocaching and this site that it is blinding judgement on what would be fun for a cacher. How your idea would 'look like NASCAR' is beyond me.

 

Again, good luck and thanks for trying to keep the game fun.....

Edited September 15, 2005 by teamjack&birdie

[Keystone]

tossedsalad, by opening a forum thread you've invited the community to comment on your topic. Those who feel that modifying your cache is the best way to get it published are just as entitled to state their opinion as those who feel it should be listed as-is. I've not seen any posts from others to this thread that violate the forum guidelines. Please respect everyone's right to their opinion, even if they don't agree with you. I do think that people are generally trying to be helpful. That was certainly the intent of my own posts.

[tossedsalad]

Tossedsalad,

 

I like your idea but if it isn't approved, would it be possible to place it nearthat coffee shop with an invitation in the log to go inside and play a game, of course mentioning how absolutely no purchase is necessary?

 

I know I'm not answering your question but your idea seems to neat to not place becasue you may not be able to place the cache inside the building.

I will consider that. The third stage of this cache can be a small container that could hold a log book. But there won't be any room for TBs or swag other than the erasers and such that seem to accumulate in my other small caches.

 

I'm not sure if I can put a note in the final saying, "there are games and swag inside the coffee shop". That would seem to violate the rules as well. As many have said, just because other caches do it doesn't make it jibe with the rules.

 

But I want to give gc.com a chance first. This time I am not going to be totally passive and wait forever. I am going to send a follow up email every week. Hopefully they will find the time to reply and provide status.

[+fizzymagic]

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance

 

2) I should have asked gc.com first.

In other words, you were supposed to know, without any indication in the guidelines, that reviewers cannot approve inside caches, period. Using that psychic knowledge, you would also know that you should get permission from Groundspeak first.

 

If this really reflects the exchange you had with the approver, then, IMO, that kind of response from an approver is unacceptable. Most cachers are not familiar with the day-to-day requirements placed on approvers, and do not know the arcane rules for under exactly what circumstances they should and should not get prior approval from Groundspeak.

 

In fact, it seems to me that helping hiders determine what approvals are needed is part of the approvers' job. Snarky notes telling the hider that he should have done something before submitting the cache are not helpful and not professional. A polite note telling the hider that the approver is not able to approve the cache, and giving him specific steps to take to get it approved would have been the appropriate response here.

[tossedsalad]

tossedsalad, by opening a forum thread you've invited the community to comment on your topic.  Those who feel that modifying your cache is the best way to get it published are just as entitled to state their opinion as those who feel it should be listed as-is.  I've not seen any posts from others to this thread that violate the forum guidelines.  Please respect everyone's right to their opinion, even if they don't agree with you.  I do think that people are generally trying to be helpful.  That was certainly the intent of my own posts.

Was there something in particular I did that made you post this? I am asking questions and telling people what is helpful and what is not. Is that a problem? Did I violate any of the forum guidelines?

 

This is an example of a post that was not helpful in any way. I just find it frustrating that there are so many posts that are clearly not helping, but just offering an opinion. As you yourself have said, even the opinions of the reviewers are not relevant as it is gc.com that has to make the decision. At no time did I request everyone's opinion. Of course they can offer it as this is an open forum. Does that mean that I should not request people *not* to offer opinions since that is not what I am looking for?

 

I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't understand the purpose of your post.

 

I also don't agree with your statement about the posts being "generally helpful". Was this comment intended to be helpful, "Your profile says that you are an engineer and that explains a lot for me", or this one, "I just think that unless you're as myoptic as your avatar,", or this, "you can't foist your cache on the inside of a company"??? The first two strike me as rude and the last shows the poster is going way beyond the conversation here and is making wild assumptions about the cache.

 

I'm done complaining about the irrelevant or even rude posts, I just wanted to reply since you are a reviewer and your post sounded like more than just an opinion. But then if it was an "official" warning of somekind, I guess it would have been sent to me directly rather than publicly, no?

[Keystone]

I would submit that the Guidelines are quite clear, fizzymagic:

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

 

Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.

 

I have no difficulty assisting cache hiders with caches that are identified as possibly being commercial, whether intentionally or not. I tell them to contact Groundspeak, per the paragraph that I highlighted.

 

I also have no difficulty reaching the conclusion that a caches placed inside of "locations that sell products or services" are within the purview of the quoted guideline.

 

No psychic powers ought to be necessary, especially after this guideline is brought to a cache owner's attention. And no, the volunteer reviewer did not use the particular paraphrased summary words that you quoted. The exchange of correspondence is quite thorough. The reviewer's early notes both quoted the same guideline that I quoted above, and advised the hider of the need to contact Groundspeak, as stated in the Guideline.

[Keystone]

But then if it was an "official" warning of somekind, I guess it would have been sent to me directly rather than publicly, no?

In performing our moderator duties, mods often first try to keep the thread on track by posting guidance directly within the topic itself. If that guidance is not effective, forum guideline violations can then also be dealt with privately. If and when a formal warning is given, the user receives a private message. See the forum guidelines linked at the top left of the page.

[tossedsalad]

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance

 

2) I should have asked gc.com first.

In other words, you were supposed to know, without any indication in the guidelines, that reviewers cannot approve inside caches, period. Using that psychic knowledge, you would also know that you should get permission from Groundspeak first.

 

If this really reflects the exchange you had with the approver, then, IMO, that kind of response from an approver is unacceptable. Most cachers are not familiar with the day-to-day requirements placed on approvers, and do not know the arcane rules for under exactly what circumstances they should and should not get prior approval from Groundspeak.

 

In fact, it seems to me that helping hiders determine what approvals are needed is part of the approvers' job. Snarky notes telling the hider that he should have done something before submitting the cache are not helpful and not professional. A polite note telling the hider that the approver is not able to approve the cache, and giving him specific steps to take to get it approved would have been the appropriate response here.

The guidelines do mention contacting gc.com. My mistake was that I thought contacting the reviewer or even posting the cache was contacting gc.com. But they really meant I should email the address, contact@geocaching.com. After I was told this I looked for this info and it is well hidden on the site. All the commercial cache section says is "permission should be asked first before posting." Even on the "contact" page, nowhere does it provide an address to email this sort of question. I guess you could go through the support page, but that is not what I was finally told I should do.

 

I don't have a problem with the overall issues of what the reviewer did or didn't tell me. Once I understood that the reviewer is out of the loop on this issue, I can't complain about them not having more info for me.

 

gc.com seems to have left the exceptions vague deliberately so that they can decide them as ad hoc issues and I don't have an issue with that either. I am just looking for some insight into this ad hoc process.

 

I certainly am not trying to criticize the reviewers in this process. I'm just trying to learn a bit more about it.

[tossedsalad]

But then if it was an "official" warning of somekind, I guess it would have been sent to me directly rather than publicly, no?

In performing our moderator duties, mods often first try to keep the thread on track by posting guidance directly within the topic itself. If that guidance is not effective, forum guideline violations can then also be dealt with privately. If and when a formal warning is given, the user receives a private message. See the forum guidelines linked at the top left of the page.

Ok, but you still did not answer my question about your other post. Was that intended to be something official? If so, can you tell me what I did wrong?

[ju66l3r]

At this point I am disappointed in this thread. I clearly stated what I was asking for and instead of either helping me with my effort or just remaining silent, many here seem to feel a need to point out what I have already said I am aware of, what they think I am feeling or what they think are my personal inadequacies...

 

I am still happy to listen to anyone that has something constructive to say. But I won't bother to reply to posts that just repeat the stuff I already know or that want to make personal remarks.

Someone help me out...which one of those three do I fall into?

 

Since we have no evidence to the contrary (and it'd be a heck of a selling point for a commercial cache if you're trying to convince anyone of its validity to be listed here), I'll assume you don't have permission from the coffee shop to place a cache inside their establishment.

 

Beyond protecting what many users see as a certain "sanctity" of the game, the commercial rule protects geocaching from a hellstorm of complaints from companies who suddenly found their businesses as grounds for a web-based game without input from the companies. This is why the exception is primarily made for company representatives who come to Groundspeak asking to put a cache in their place (e.g., user "tosmith" of California's REI-based temporary geocache that was exceptioned).

 

If you require the form number(s) you need to fill out in order to file for an exception, you're going to have to close this thread and walk away from this cache idea. There are NO FORMS, NO EXACT STANDARDS, and not even a "tried'n'true" method for getting an exception to the commercial cache guideline.

 

Mail the support address hourly until the coffee shop goes belly up. It's not going to help. If you don't get a response there, then you need to take your *new* problem over to the GC.com Website forum and complain that your support e-mail is going unanswered (be sure to bring your tracking number from the auto-response). If you do get a response, then hopefully you'll accept that answer as final and start to come up with a solution rather than ramming your head into the same guideline...no matter how justified you seem in doing it.

 

...or was all this rhetorical? You didn't post here in order to get an answer or help...you just wanted to post about how you still couldn't get your cache approved. You ended your first post with "any suggestions on how to ring the bells to get this approved?".

 

So far you've gotten quite a few suggestions. You can bury your ears in the sand and continue to dismiss every suggestion you don't like as "opinion" instead of "answer" but you'll never hear the ringing of bells that way.

 

If you're looking for some sort of "answer", meaning the exact minimalist thing you have to do to this cache in order to get it approved while still keeping it in the coffee shop as a criteria AND you're going to dismiss "answers" like mine (get the shop to submit it with request for a commercial cache..cuz that's how it's done usually OR waymark it and stop trying to put a cache in a restaurant)...then the "answer" is you're not. Get over it.

[Keystone]

ju66l3r, the cache owner in fact states that he has permission from the coffee shop in his note on the cache page which, of course, you cannot see. It doesn't change the analysis. Even with permission from the business, permission from Groundspeak is required. As you noted, the "sanctity" of the game as a commercial-free activity is relevant here. So is a company's right to determine what other products and services it promotes.

 

Apart from that small clarification, I thank you for your post, since it did a good job in answering tossedsalad's question which appears immediately above it.

[ju66l3r]

Apart from that small clarification, I thank you for your post, since it did a good job in answering tossedsalad's question which appears immediately above it.

Ok. Then have the shop sign up and run the cache. That's the only way I bet this cache ever gets accepted.

[+StarBrand]

...gc.com seems to have left the exceptions vague deliberately so that they can decide them as ad hoc issues and I don't have an issue with that either. I am just looking for some insight into this ad hoc process. ...

As I stated previously: (a bit differently)

 

I really don't think there IS a "process". Why can't you accept that?

 

And to repeat my OP in this thread "Does it really HAVE to be in the coffee shop?"

[+Ambrosia]

1) a reviewer can no longer approve a cache inside a building period, end of sentance

 

I also have no difficulty reaching the conclusion that a caches placed inside of "locations that sell products or services" are within the purview of the quoted guideline.

 

Just a clarification here. Which is it? Reviewers cannot approve a cache that is in any building, commercial or not commercial, or just commercial buildings?

 

Thanks for the help.

[+dogbreathcanada]

The EXCEPTION clause isn't a general purpose loophole. It's simply a clause that gives Groundspeak an out, in the event they want to place commercial caches. That keeps the whining to a minimum (theoretically).

 

If Groundspeak were to hash out some commercial deal with Denny's, the EXCEPTION clause allows them to approve caches placed inside Denny's Restaurants. Or Jeep dealerships. Or whatever.

 

When you see those EXCEPTION clauses, look at them as loopholes for Groundpeak-only use.