Jump to content

Question of fees


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Problem: I placed an underwater cache for geo-scuba divers 30 feet down in the middle of a private diver's quarry in Kentucky (Cerulean Springs Quarry). Initially, the reviewer (KY) said, "Ok" even though there is a fee to enter the location. I placed it a year ago (it's still down there) but a new reviewer cancelled the idea. He said the entrance fee was incompatible with geocaching. In general, I agree.

 

Question: How is this any different from many state, and federal parks that have an entrance fee? And, is it proper to consider an acceptible fee if the cache is highly unusual and completely unique?

 

Thoughts on the subject?? :anitongue:

 

Eddie the Razor

Link to comment

Given the unique nature of the cache and the fact that it's not unusual in scuba diving for there to be fees associated with dives that aren't shore dives (i.e. dive charters) and costs associated with every dive (i.e. air/nitrox; equipment rentals if you don't own; etc.) , I don't think this is incompatible, particularly if you warn people in advance. Divers attempting your cache would not be phased by the admission fee. I think the cache should be reinstated.

 

I'm assuming that you placed this cache on your own initiative and that you're not receiving any remuneration for placing in the quarry.

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

Link to comment

Pure speculation, but I think the idea is that geocache listings not be used to promote... well, anything.

 

There is a Groundspeak aversion, for example, to even mentioning for-profit businesses on a cache page (unless they get an advertising fee to do so).

 

You can have a cache at your favorite restaraunt, for example, but can't mention its name or encourage folks to eat there.

 

That logic extends to anywhere that charges a for-profit fee.

 

Perhaps there are divers that only go to dive shop-equipped locations that charge fees to dive, I don't know, but here in Alabama folks dive most everywhere, lakes, quarries, etc. for free, so maybe consider moving your cache to a place like that.

 

Ed

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

i think it's a no go i mean if i placed a cache inside disneyland they for sure wouldn't let it fly right?

Link to comment
caches in Disney World

 

There are a couple of virtual caches in Disney (Florida) placed prior to the Nov 02 guidelines revision which added the no fee for profit language. They are grandfathered.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted.

 

I have no idea where you get the idea that someone not associated with the quarry can get a cache listed. The guidelines language is quite unambiguous. OFF-LIMITS; caches in

for-profit locations that require an entrance fee
. It makes no reference whatever to the cache placer's association or non-association with the for profit area. Just NOT ALLOWED.
Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

From this geocacher's view it appears that the Guidelines are intentionally a bit fuzzy to give the Reviewers some flexibility, as the game varies from area to area, and interpretations vary from Reviewer to Reviewer.

 

That can mean that the Guidelines often mean what the last Reviewer says they mean, and right wrong or indifferent you will rarely see a Reviewer's decision over-ruled.

 

Beyond that, Groundspeak employs at least one attorney, and has attorneys among its Volunteer Reviewer community, so I suppose that the Guidelines have been carefully worked over by them as well.

 

Casting no aspertions onto the much-appreciated legal professionals among us, but back when I implemented Legal Practice Management systems I learned that lawyer-speak is often fuzzily worded, I call them wiggle-words, because they allow the writer to wiggle around any given interpretation. :anitongue:

 

Accepting that the Guidelines mean what your Reviewer interprets them to mean, instead of what they actually say, will save you an awful lot of time and debate! :tired:

 

In this case, however, you need to re-read the Guideline carefully, as the prohibition is against soliciting business, and makes no distinction as to WHO does the soliciting or why - so not only can't the business own a cache for promotion and solicitation, the cache owner is prohibited from encouraging cachers to do business with anyone as well. Placing your cache where a for-profit fee is required to access it is a defacto solicitation of business, just as "Eat at Joe's while you are here" is.

 

Ed

 

Edited to clarify fuzzy wording!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

Link to comment

There are 2 caches near me that are at a lake that charges a fee to get in. The fee is not mentioned in the cache listing so you get suprised by it when you try to hunt the caches. There are several caches on a creek that are canoe caches. I guess if you go with your own canoe its free, but if you have to rent canoes then its about 30.00. None of that is mentioned in the cache listing.

Link to comment

There are several caches on a creek that are canoe caches. I guess if you go with your own canoe its free, but if you have to rent canoes then its about 30.00. None of that is mentioned in the cache listing.

 

But that should be obvious to anyone trying to find the cache. If it's on an island or down a creek or otherwise says on the cache page that you need a boat, then obviously if I don't have my own boat I'm going to rent one. Or maybe buy an inflatable dinghy. But that's different because if you already do happen to own a canoe, it's no charge. Now, if there was only one boat launch on that creek and they charged $20 anytime you wanted to drop a boat in, that would be very different.

 

Really, how do we know that this whole game isn't a solicitation for Garmin or Magellan? After all, you have to buy a $100-400 GPS unit to play. That's actually a pretty steep price for admission :anitongue:

Link to comment

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

 

The subject of the sentence is "Commercial Caches". If I am not part of that commercial establishment my cache is not Commercial.

Link to comment

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

 

The subject of the sentence is "Commercial Caches". If I am not part of that commercial establishment my cache is not Commercial.

 

If the cache solicits customers the guidelines deem it commercial regardless of who placed it. The guidelines specifically say "intentionally or un-intentionally". Anyway, your interpretation doesn't matter, only the reviewer's matters and I see these caches shot down all the time.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Given the unique nature of the cache and the fact that it's not unusual in scuba diving for there to be fees associated with dives that aren't shore dives (i.e. dive charters) and costs associated with every dive (i.e. air/nitrox; equipment rentals if you don't own; etc.) , I don't think this is incompatible, particularly if you warn people in advance. Divers attempting your cache would not be phased by the admission fee. I think the cache should be reinstated.

 

I'm assuming that you placed this cache on your own initiative and that you're not receiving any remuneration for placing in the quarry.

Link to comment

Given the unique nature of the cache and the fact that it's not unusual in scuba diving for there to be fees associated with dives that aren't shore dives (i.e. dive charters) and costs associated with every dive (i.e. air/nitrox; equipment rentals if you don't own; etc.) , I don't think this is incompatible, particularly if you warn people in advance. Divers attempting your cache would not be phased by the admission fee. I think the cache should be reinstated.

 

I'm assuming that you placed this cache on your own initiative and that you're not receiving any remuneration for placing in the quarry.

 

No - I'm just an avid diver and it sounded like fun!

Eddie the Razor

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I had the permission of the quarry owner - and blessing. I placed it myself and have no connection with the location.

Eddie the Razor

Link to comment

There are several caches on a creek that are canoe caches. I guess if you go with your own canoe its free, but if you have to rent canoes then its about 30.00. None of that is mentioned in the cache listing.

 

But that should be obvious to anyone trying to find the cache. If it's on an island or down a creek or otherwise says on the cache page that you need a boat, then obviously if I don't have my own boat I'm going to rent one. Or maybe buy an inflatable dinghy. But that's different because if you already do happen to own a canoe, it's no charge. Now, if there was only one boat launch on that creek and they charged $20 anytime you wanted to drop a boat in, that would be very different.

 

Really, how do we know that this whole game isn't a solicitation for Garmin or Magellan? After all, you have to buy a $100-400 GPS unit to play. That's actually a pretty steep price for admission :tired:

 

I think the distinction here is muddy but basically understandable.

 

I own boat-required caches, and know that cacher's will have to buy/beg/rent a boat to get to them if they don't already own one.

 

I am hosting an event in TN over Labor Day where we will go after 20+ caches by boat, and will have to rent one to do it.

 

In both cases where the cacher rents the boat is up to them.

 

What I can't do is suggest that the cacher rent one from Billy Bob's Marina.

 

I can, however, mention that Billy Bob's rents boats, and even that I am renting mine from Billy Bob's.

 

The line between information and promotion is indeed thin!

 

In fact, that line is often one of semantics alone - choose your words carefully and you can mention almost any business... just don't suggest folks actually do business there.

 

Some of our State Parks have lakes, and the State contracts out the boat rentals to a for-profit business.

 

It's acceptable to place a cache in the park, notwithstanding the fee, as the park is a non-profit. Is it OK for us to place a cache along the lake where cacher's would have no choice but rent from that for-profit contractor? Evidently so, as we have them listed.

 

Fortunately it's not a black-and-white world we live in! :anitongue:

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

That's a good point!

But I've been wondering about this cache listing. Was the cache listed, out for a year, then the listing got rescinded? A cache in a private area that charges to visit definently sounds commerical, but if it was out for a year (??) shouldn't it have been archived? or did noone ever find it???

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

That's a good point!

But I've been wondering about this cache listing. Was the cache listed, out for a year, then the listing got rescinded? A cache in a private area that charges to visit definently sounds commerical, but if it was out for a year (??) shouldn't it have been archived? or did noone ever find it???

 

There are many 'under-the-radar' caches out there!

 

Reviewers appear to have some latitude in interpretation and enforcement; when a new Reviewer is assigned to an area he/she has no way to know what kind of caches the previous Reviewer may have allowed. Cachers have been known to leave out certain pertinent detail in their listing submission... there are a number of ways an 'illegal' cache might exist out there, and may exist for years, as Reviewers probably don't spend a lot of time scouring their area for trouble.

 

Once an illegal cache gets called to a Reviewer's attention, however, I expect they have to act on it.

 

I wouldn't think that just because the cache lasted a while before getting busted gives it any sort of grandfathered status.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

 

The subject of the sentence is "Commercial Caches". If I am not part of that commercial establishment my cache is not Commercial.

 

If the cache solicits customers the guidelines deem it commercial regardless of who placed it. The guidelines specifically say "intentionally or un-intentionally". Anyway, your interpretation doesn't matter, only the reviewer's matters and I see these caches shot down all the time.

 

Not disagreeing with what happens, or the concept for that matter.. just saying they should be able to say what they mean in the guidelines rather than having to translate what they say into what they mean.

Link to comment

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

 

The subject of the sentence is "Commercial Caches". If I am not part of that commercial establishment my cache is not Commercial.

 

If the cache solicits customers the guidelines deem it commercial regardless of who placed it. The guidelines specifically say "intentionally or un-intentionally". Anyway, your interpretation doesn't matter, only the reviewer's matters and I see these caches shot down all the time.

 

Not disagreeing with what happens, or the concept for that matter.. just saying they should be able to say what they mean in the guidelines rather than having to translate what they say into what they mean.

 

If that were possible or desirable your state's laws would fit in your pocket and lawyers would be out of work! Outside of science (and sometimes within) everything I can think of is some shade of gray.

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

That's a good point!

But I've been wondering about this cache listing. Was the cache listed, out for a year, then the listing got rescinded? A cache in a private area that charges to visit definently sounds commerical, but if it was out for a year (??) shouldn't it have been archived? or did noone ever find it???

 

There are many 'under-the-radar' caches out there!

 

Reviewers appear to have some latitude in interpretation and enforcement; when a new Reviewer is assigned to an area he/she has no way to know what kind of caches the previous Reviewer may have allowed. Cachers have been known to leave out certain pertinent detail in their listing submission... there are a number of ways an 'illegal' cache might exist out there, and may exist for years, as Reviewers probably don't spend a lot of time scouring their area for trouble.

 

Once an illegal cache gets called to a Reviewer's attention, however, I expect they have to act on it.

 

I wouldn't think that just because the cache lasted a while before getting busted gives it any sort of grandfathered status.

 

Yea I realize there are 'under-the-radar' caches out, and yes reviewers should act on these things when they find them / are brought up. I never said it deserves to be grandfathered for being out there for a while. Its commerical, it needed addressed.

What I don't understand is why it was recinded instead of archived. Its not like every cache that turns out to be not as advertised gets recinded, they usually get archived, right?? And according to the OP this was even known of and permitted by the previous reviewer, not found and 'busted'. Yes opions change, people change, what one said was ok is not with the next. If the reviewer wanted to kill the cache, thats fine. But they called the whole thing totally invalid. Maybe there's more details that made this cache worse then it sounds?... making it worthy of being un-happened :ph34r:

Link to comment

Pure speculation, but I think the idea is that geocache listings not be used to promote... well, anything.

 

There is a Groundspeak aversion, for example, to even mentioning for-profit businesses on a cache page (unless they get an advertising fee to do so).

 

You can have a cache at your favorite restaurant, for example, but can't mention its name or encourage folks to eat there.

 

That logic extends to anywhere that charges a for-profit fee.

 

Perhaps there are divers that only go to dive shop-equipped locations that charge fees to dive, I don't know, but here in Alabama folks dive most everywhere, lakes, quarries, etc. for free, so maybe consider moving your cache to a place like that.

 

I would like to see this revisted in the guidelines. I agree with all the logic listed in this message quoted and want this to stay as far away from commercialism as possible.

 

Having said that however, with regard to scuba many parts of the country only have for fee sites to do this activity. Allowing someone to combine these two activities is, simply put, awesome and should be encouraged.

 

I think this guideline has some latitude built into it for the reviewers. If there is truly no place in your area, area being a very subjective rule of thumb, and this is the only way to offer this type of cache I would consider going through the appeal process. Come up with some solid benefits.

 

In the past there were some caches in my area that were located in areas that had to be paid to get in, most notably one near where I live in the Chicago area at a place called Cantigny (a museum). For those who did not grow up in the area it brought them to a very "wow" type place. I am sure that the intent of the guideline is to prevent someone from profiting directly and that latitude in the past may have been abused, so this may be an uphill battle.

 

For me at least, it would be worth it. We have no scuba type caches in my area (that I know of) even though I live near the countries largest coastline.

Link to comment

Given the specific reference to not listing caches in for profit areas that charge admissions fees in the listing guidelines, I think it unlikely that it will be relisted:

 

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'd guess you could get one listed, but you'd need to contact Groundspeak about it. The reviewer has to work the guidelines.

 

The guideline wording above seems very specific. If the Quarry placed the cache it is not permitted, if you placed it and are you not associated with the quarry, it is permitted. I don't know your specific arrangement and perhaps your reviewer doesn't either. As far as how much $$.... there is nothing written, but there are lots of caches in Disney World which I'm sure charges a bunch more than the quarry.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. It doesn't matter who places it.

 

As far as the Disney caches, most have been removed except a few virtuals. Also the existing ones were published quite a while ago. I doubt they would be published today.

That's a good point!

But I've been wondering about this cache listing. Was the cache listed, out for a year, then the listing got rescinded? A cache in a private area that charges to visit definently sounds commerical, but if it was out for a year (??) shouldn't it have been archived? or did noone ever find it???

 

There are many 'under-the-radar' caches out there!

 

Reviewers appear to have some latitude in interpretation and enforcement; when a new Reviewer is assigned to an area he/she has no way to know what kind of caches the previous Reviewer may have allowed. Cachers have been known to leave out certain pertinent detail in their listing submission... there are a number of ways an 'illegal' cache might exist out there, and may exist for years, as Reviewers probably don't spend a lot of time scouring their area for trouble.

 

Once an illegal cache gets called to a Reviewer's attention, however, I expect they have to act on it.

 

I wouldn't think that just because the cache lasted a while before getting busted gives it any sort of grandfathered status.

 

Yea I realize there are 'under-the-radar' caches out, and yes reviewers should act on these things when they find them / are brought up. I never said it deserves to be grandfathered for being out there for a while. Its commerical, it needed addressed.

What I don't understand is why it was recinded instead of archived. Its not like every cache that turns out to be not as advertised gets recinded, they usually get archived, right?? And according to the OP this was even known of and permitted by the previous reviewer, not found and 'busted'. Yes opions change, people change, what one said was ok is not with the next. If the reviewer wanted to kill the cache, thats fine. But they called the whole thing totally invalid. Maybe there's more details that made this cache worse then it sounds?... making it worthy of being un-happened :ph34r:

 

I need to clarify: I am the one who started this thread. I had the permission of the quarry owner to place the cache and I do NOT have any affiliation with them. I am just a diver and geocacher. I initially had the permission of the KY reviewer to place the cache. I made the trip, did the dive, and placed the cache in the deepest part of the quarry. Then when I tried to enable the cache, the KY reviewer had changed to a different person - and denied the cache. I was mostly upset to have constructed a bottom floating cache, traveled to the dive site, placed it... and all for nothing! :lol:

Eddie-the-Razor

Link to comment

I need to clarify: I am the one who started this thread. I had the permission of the quarry owner to place the cache and I do NOT have any affiliation with them. I am just a diver and geocacher. I initially had the permission of the KY reviewer to place the cache. I made the trip, did the dive, and placed the cache in the deepest part of the quarry. Then when I tried to enable the cache, the KY reviewer had changed to a different person - and denied the cache. I was mostly upset to have constructed a bottom floating cache, traveled to the dive site, placed it... and all for nothing! :D

Eddie-the-Razor

That would explain quite a bit :ph34r:

 

And this happened a year ago?? :lol: "I placed it a year ago (it's still down there) but a new reviewer cancelled the idea."

Link to comment

Not disagreeing with what happens, or the concept for that matter.. just saying they should be able to say what they mean in the guidelines rather than having to translate what they say into what they mean.

 

If that were possible or desirable your state's laws would fit in your pocket and lawyers would be out of work! Outside of science (and sometimes within) everything I can think of is some shade of gray.

 

Oh it is quite possible and desirable.. just that it isn't often done.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...