cache permanence in a different way

[+kdv]

Hi there,

 

I recently created a new cache here in Italy and was surprised to see that the reviewer considers it to be in violation with the "Cache Permanence" guideline. It is placed inside a community park, owned by the municipality, that is open to the public only on Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday (with a lunch break).

The reviewer claims that he considers this to be a 'violation of the cache permanence guideline, albeit in a different way. I could easily move the cache and place it just outside the park, so it will be accessibile at all times. But the fun of the cache is the park, and if you go there when the park is closed, you will experience nothing special. (For now it's a Regular, but I was toying with the idea of changing it to a multi, with an itinerary to follow in the park.) I think it would be a real waste to have people go up to this spot when the park is closed. Any thoughts?

 

Thanks!

 

kdv

[+briansnat]

I don't know that it violates the cache permance guidelines as I read them, but neither do I think the cache is a particularly good idea. The park is closed most of the time and there is only a narrow window when it is open.

 

Being that many geocachers just load waypoints to their unit and go out sans cache page, a lot of geocachers will be inconvenienced when they get there to find the park closed. Also the potential is there unfortunately, for some geocachers to ignore the closed status and try to enter the park.

 

If it were the other way around and the park was only closed for a day and a half I think putting a cache there would be more realistic.

[+kdv]

 

Being that many geocachers just load waypoints to their unit and go out sans cache page, a lot of geocachers will be inconvenienced when they get there to find the park closed.

If it were the other way around and the park was only closed for a day and a half I think putting a cache there would be more realistic.

 

Ok, you have a point there. People that just load waypoints in their machine and are on their way, would not be happy. But on the other hand, if the park was only closed 2 days a week, they still would not be happy if they happened to go there on one of those days. Just a bit better odds. Plus I believe geocaching in Italy is nothing like geocaching in the US. Twice I have found 4 caches in one day, and here that is something people tend to be quite impressed by (.... inserting pause for the laughter to subside ....).

My point being that with only very few caches hunted on one and the same day, people tend to prepare their trip a bit more than just by loading waypoints...

 

Also the potential is there unfortunately, for some geocachers to ignore the closed status and try to enter the park.

Chances of this happening are practically zero. There is a high wall and gate around the park, and when the gate is closed, you'd have to be out of your mind to try and climb it. Plus I don't think I can be held accountable for the stupid things that others may or may not try to do.

 

Maybe a good 'compromise' would be to find a way to cater for both situations. A multi through the park with the physical cache hidden outside the park. How about if I hide a cache inside a cache? A biggish container outside of the park, with inside a smaller container with additional goodies and/or TB's) that has a number lock and you'd need to complete the multi to crack the code?

Edited March 20, 2007 by kdv

[X-isle]

 

Being that many geocachers just load waypoints to their unit and go out sans cache page, a lot of geocachers will be inconvenienced when they get there to find the park closed. Also the potential is there unfortunately, for some geocachers to ignore the closed status and try to enter the park.

 

 

In the case that cachers just load waypoints and go, is nobodys fault but their own. I never go out without some research. And as I go alone most of the time, my approximate destination is important for safety issues. And this second remark about it may not be a good idea because some cachers may break the rules is absurd to me. You are effectively altering proceedures to accomodate rule breakers. (you wouldn't be a congressman would you?) Now I'm no moderator...and you certainly know more about it than I do...but I didn't see anything about time availability (or more specifically the amount of available time) in the rules. And I don't know the specific details for this OP, but I know what it feels like to be wrongfully censored.

[+briansnat]

And this second remark about it may not be a good idea because some cachers may break the rules is absurd to me. You are effectively altering proceedures to accomodate rule breakers.

 

Unfortunately there are rule breakers out there. Lots of them. They have to be considered when placing caches.

 

The high fence mentioned by Kdv makes that a moot point with this cache however.

[+jackrock]

What if you made it a puzzle cache that would require some in advance prep and ensure that people looked at the cache page and realized the availability limits?

[CoyoteRed]

Any thoughts?

 

Let's see:

• Reviewers making up rules as they go.
  
• If you think the cache would be better inside the park then that's what you should do.
  
• Make it a multi or easy puzzle so folks are forced to read the cache page to be informed of the park hours.
  

I've got a canoe cache listed on another site where the area is only open on Wednesday and Saturdays, and when it's not flooded. Putting the cache outside the area would certainly defeat the whole purpose of the cache.

 

Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly with having to construct your cache with idea of some folks will do anything to get the cache. I've seen where folks will bypass clearly stated instructions, mention they read the instructions and did it anyway, and then admonish you for where you put the cache. Now the cache no longer exists and it was a very neat spot with centuries of history.

[+kdv]

What if you made it a puzzle cache that would require some in advance prep and ensure that people looked at the cache page and realized the availability limits?

 

I think it's a good idea, but playing the devil's advocate: what about those people who solve puzzles and then load the solutions as waypoints and go hunt for them when they happen to be in the area. Then we are back at the original 'problem'.

 

By the way, if hours of accessibility is an issue, why are there no guidelines referring to this? A clear statement like 'a cache should be accessible at a minimum for 20 hours a week' would help even the playing field and make us less dependent on the 'capriciousness' of reviewers. Or is there no guideline because I am not in violation of anything?

It's just a waste that I have to place the cache outside of the park to accomodate for cachers who don't do their homework, at the expense of those who do

[+kdv]

I've got a canoe cache listed on another site where the area is only open on Wednesday and Saturdays, and when it's not flooded. Putting the cache outside the area would certainly defeat the whole purpose of the cache.

 

Too bad it's on another site. I don't suppose you have any examples of gc listings that got approved 'notwithstanding' a limited time slot?

 

Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly with having to construct your cache with idea of some folks will do anything to get the cache.

 

Well one of my caches requires you to cross a busy road. What if someone crosses the road at the wrong moment in their urge to get to the cache and get hit by a car? Then maybe we shouldn't make caches that require you to cross busy roads? On the cache page, I do mention the busy road crossing bit, and I have listed the cache as not suitable for kids, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go. The list of stupid things people can do is endless, and although we should consider them, I don't believe we should create caches to cater for idiots.

[CoyoteRed]

Well one of my caches requires you to cross a busy road. What if someone crosses the road at the wrong moment in their urge to get to the cache and get hit by a car? Then maybe we shouldn't make caches that require you to cross busy roads? On the cache page, I do mention the busy road crossing bit, and I have listed the cache as not suitable for kids, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go. The list of stupid things people can do is endless, and although we should consider them, I don't believe we should create caches to cater for idiots.

While I would feel bad that someone got hurt while hunting one of our caches, I wouldn't feel responsible. Folks should always be aware of their surroundings and take necessary precautions.

 

However, you didn't get the thrust of my argument. I don't mention designing against idiots to protect them. (Unless there is a hidden safety issue.) You design against idiots to protect you, your cache, and your relationship with the landowner.

[X-isle]

Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly with having to construct your cache with idea of some folks will do anything to get the cache.

 

Well one of my caches requires you to cross a busy road. What if someone crosses the road at the wrong moment in their urge to get to the cache and get hit by a car? Then maybe we shouldn't make caches that require you to cross busy roads? On the cache page, I do mention the busy road crossing bit, and I have listed the cache as not suitable for kids, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go. The list of stupid things people can do is endless, and although we should consider them, I don't believe we should create caches to cater for idiots.

 

My point exactly! It puts me in mind of those stickers that snowblower manufacturers put on their snowblowers warning people not to use this equipment on their rooftops! And sadly the manufacturers do this to avoid the possibility of wrongful and frivolous suits. It's a sad world. But idiot catering only goes so far. I realize not everyone is going to follow the rules, but that is in no way the responsibility of the placer. But I will, after all, from this point forward, include this criteria as a valuable addition to my list of requirements. I'm not going to intentionally invite disaster. And frankly, the thought never crossed my mind that some cachers were dishonest dirty players. But i suppose they are out there. But I won't accept any blame for their lack of respect and integrity. I appreciate the advise Brian, and will remember it on my next hide.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The rules are the rules, whining about them may bring change, but in this situation I doubt it! And to say that we shouldn't worry about the rules breakers well...irresponsible from a cache placer's view point! That's why I was so strongly against the "challenge" laid down a while back X-isle...we need to have an understanding of the right ways to place a hide before it's a problem cache (or a problem for the reviewers). The rules are whatever the reviewer thinks are right (unless you'd care to try to go over the reviewer's head...that should make you some friends in the reviewer column...have fun trying to place another hide after that)!

 

What about the traveler that saw this and loaded it anyway "just in case" but forgot about the time constraints afterwards??? We often download and go (I don't, I write down some info for each cache...no PDA as yet)...so that could easily happen and a visitor may not have much time on hand to be wasted going to a closed area! For that matter, some vacationers couldn't even tell you what day it is (having fun means being carefree sometimes).

 

To address the rulebreakers comment that X-isle took offense to...they are out there and to say it's absurd to take this into account is REALLY scary! You are being irresponsible to the cache community...and this type of action COULD be a HUGE black eye for our sport! Headlines read "Guy jumps fence at closed park, Geocaching is to blame". May not be a big deal to some, but my two brothers are dead against caching and are ALWAYS looking for any bullets to fire off at me...this would load their guns up big time!! Sounds silly??? What if one of my brothers was police chief and the other was the Mayor???

 

We have to protect our sport from those that aren't bright enough to, or just don't care to follow the rules...not ignore it as absurd!! Placing a cache takes a bit more than a container and a place to put it!

[+Rockin Roddy]

How would you feel X-isle or kdv...if a family brought the kids and such because they downloaded and took off....no, didn't read the listing clean through. When they got there, the kids were in a hurry and took straight off before the parents could even get out of the car...one gets hit and is badly injured or worse??? Their fault because they were anxious to go play??? Wouldn't that be something for you to deal with!!!

Edited March 20, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[CoyoteRed]

I realize not everyone is going to follow the rules, but that is in no way the responsibility of the placer.

Well, if you don't mind that phone call from the guy from whom you got permission and to whom you made a promise that no one would be jumping the fence to get in his park after hours, then that's a perfectly defensible position.

[X-isle]

The rules are the rules, whining about them may bring change, but in this situation I doubt it! And to say that we shouldn't worry about the rules breakers well...irresponsible from a cache placer's view point! That's why I was so strongly against the "challenge" laid down a while back X-isle...we need to have an understanding of the right ways to place a hide before it's a problem cache (or a problem for the reviewers). The rules are whatever the reviewer thinks are right (unless you'd care to try to go over the reviewer's head...that should make you some friends in the reviewer column...have fun trying to place another hide after that)!

 

What about the traveler that saw this and loaded it anyway "just in case" but forgot about the time constraints afterwards??? We often download and go (I don't, I write down some info for each cache...no PDA as yet)...so that could easily happen and a visitor may not have much time on hand to be wasted going to a closed area! For that matter, some vacationers couldn't even tell you what day it is (having fun means being carefree sometimes).

 

To address the rulebreakers comment that X-isle took offense to...they are out there and to say it's absurd to take this into account is REALLY scary! You are being irresponsible to the cache community...and this type of action COULD be a HUGE black eye for our sport! Headlines read "Guy jumps fence at closed park, Geocaching is to blame". May not be a big deal to some, but my two brothers are dead against caching and are ALWAYS looking for any bullets to fire off at me...this would load their guns up big time!! Sounds silly??? What if one of my brothers was police chief and the other was the Mayor???

 

We have to protect our sport from those that aren't bright enough to, or just don't care to follow the rules...not ignore it as absurd!! Placing a cache takes a bit more than a container and a place to put it!

Roddy, I may respond with a strong retort, but it doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. I have to say that I haven't encountered any of these difficulties caching so far. I live in southern Oklahoma, and all the cachers I have encountered so far were fun, respectful and truely knowledgable and helpful. I just haven't seen (down here) this dark side of the coin you are referring too. In any case, I will keep it in mind. And I realize your other post was misunderstood. It still doesn't change how it was percieved. I agree with your points, just not your presentation. I still respect your opinions. And as I mentioned, I will be utilizing Brians advise, even if I feel it's a sad state we are in to have to do so.

Edited March 20, 2007 by X-isle

[+Rockin Roddy]

They're out there X-isle...they're out there!! Fortunately, the responsible cachers far outweigh the irresponsible!!

[+kdv]

The rules are the rules, whining about them may bring change, but in this situation I doubt it!

 

<snip>

 

The rules are whatever the reviewer thinks are right (unless you'd care to try to go over the reviewer's head...that should make you some friends in the reviewer column...have fun trying to place another hide after that)!

 

I don't find your contribution to this thread to be very constructive. First of all, I wasn't aware that I was whining. Thanks for pointing that out.

The rules are the rules and they are whatever the reviewer thinks are right? Uhm, how can I even *start* to repond to that... Frankly, it sounds a bit fascist* (I live in Italy, so I'm close to the source). So is that why they are called guidelines and not rules? Guidelines for each individual reviewer to use to make up their personal rules? I think not.

 

* A system marked by suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship

 

And to say that we shouldn't worry about the rules breakers well...irresponsible from a cache placer's view point!

 

And at what point exactly did I say that we shouldn't worry about the rule breakers? Worry about them is not the same as designing caches especially for them.

 

The rules are whatever the reviewer thinks are right (unless you'd care to try to go over the reviewer's head...that should make you some friends in the reviewer column...have fun trying to place another hide after that)!

Oh really? I thought there were actual procedures in place to contest reviewer decisions? So you would recommend not following them, because of future repercussions by the reviewers? Let's say that the day they make you a reviewer will be the day that I quit geocaching.

 

 

What about the traveler that saw this and loaded it anyway "just in case" but forgot about the time constraints afterwards??? We often download and go (I don't, I write down some info for each cache...no PDA as yet)...so that could easily happen and a visitor may not have much time on hand to be wasted going to a closed area! For that matter, some vacationers couldn't even tell you what day it is (having fun means being carefree sometimes).

 

Uhm, did you actually bother to read my posts? Just in case you didn't:

..playing the devil's advocate: what about those people who solve puzzles and then load the solutions as waypoints and go hunt for them when they happen to be in the area. Then we are back at the original 'problem'.

 

 

To address the rulebreakers comment that X-isle took offense to...they are out there and to say it's absurd to take this into account is REALLY scary! You are being irresponsible to the cache community...and this type of action COULD be a HUGE black eye for our sport! Headlines read "Guy jumps fence at closed park, Geocaching is to blame". May not be a big deal to some, but my two brothers are dead against caching and are ALWAYS looking for any bullets to fire off at me...this would load their guns up big time!! Sounds silly??? What if one of my brothers was police chief and the other was the Mayor???

 

We have to protect our sport from those that aren't bright enough to, or just don't care to follow the rules...not ignore it as absurd!! Placing a cache takes a bit more than a container and a place to put it!

Ok, so no caches that are not accessibile 24 hours a day? And I guess no caches that require you to cross a busy road. How about the caches you've placed yourself? Caches that are inside state parks. What about people that try to avoid having to pay an entrance fee and try to access the park from an 'alternative entrance' and hurt themselves? I also see one of your caches requires the use of a boat. What if people don't read the description in advance, arrive without a boat, try swimming and drown? Or they do have a boat (and bring kids) and they fall out of the boat and drown?

[+kdv]

 

However, you didn't get the thrust of my argument. I don't mention designing against idiots to protect them. (Unless there is a hidden safety issue.) You design against idiots to protect you, your cache, and your relationship with the landowner.

 

No, I believe I did get your point. I wasn't referring to designing caches to protect idiots. I just find it a shame that I would have to place a cache outside a beautiful park, robbing good cachers off a beautiful trail through th park (following waypoints, I know they can visit the park on their own, but for me as a geocacher it would not the same thing). Fence climing is not really a risk for the cache I was talking about. The ones I would be 'catring' for, are the cachers that didn't bother to read the description. But what if a description mentions the need for special equipment and they didn't bring it? Isn't that a bit like finding a park closed because you didn't bother to read the description that clearly states the opening hours?

[+Rockin Roddy]

So kdv...this "rule" is an inconvenience to YOU because YOU can't do what YOU want??? yep...that sounds like whining to me!!

 

Try thinking of others as well as yourself! If it's inconveniencing to MANY MANY cachers, I'm guessing that overrides your inconvenience!

 

I'm thinking the rules say that the cache needs to be accessible to everyone at most times...a cache that has night restrictions isn't stopping the majority from getting the cache, the weekend thing is MUCH different (I'd hope you could tell the diff). Having a cache that needs a boat to get isn't closing down the area to the cacher, they can actually get to mine from land (you may have overlooked that part...see how easily it can happen???). That restriction can be addressed with an attribute I think...can that be done for a weekend only cache????

 

Boaters will also know that there are regulations about life vests???? A parent taking a kid to a KNOWN boat needed cache are going to be careful (or they aren't very good parents now are they???) and will have taken all precautions...that's a bit different than a busy road that you say should be safe...kids WILL jump out of stopped cars to "hurry" to see who is going to find the cache first!!

 

People trying to enter the State Park you speak of would more likely be killed by a rogue deer than be hit on that road out front...and I don't have any near a busy road...sorry! Yep, you'll likely be hunted down like the criminal you are for trying to get away without paying (oh, no...they actually just give you a little note that asks you to not do it and to pay the fee).

 

You say you are trying to place the cache to bring people to the spot??? If it's outside the gate and people can see the area, you ARE bringing them to the spot. They see the area in question, they want to return and DO so on an open day...what's the problem??? It's an inconvenience because YOU couldn't MAKE them go there??? If it's a real "want to" (and time permits of course), the people WILL return!

 

and YES...tick off your local reviewer and you just MIGHT be made to jump through hoops for the next cache approval...fair, maybe not, but I'm thinking that MOST reviewers are human and stepping on toes does hurt!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Here's an idea for you kdv...how about placing the coords to another cache inside the cache outside the park...call it a "bonus" cache! That cache isn't required to be reviewed as long as it's not going to be given a smiley, you could put it in as the bonus and tell of the hours. A cacher can find the real cache at their convenience and then find the bonus when the park is open!!

[+kdv]

I must say, the distinction you make between rules and "rules" is very intriguing.

 

Following procedures is ticking off reviewers?

If you read all I have written in this thread, you would have seen that I had already come up with a solution to the problem at hand:

"How about if I hide..."

 

Night restrictions as opposed to weekend accessibility? Can I tell the difference? No I definitely need your help here...must be some American thing. Night, is that when they switch off the lighting?

Edited March 20, 2007 by kdv

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm glad you can tell the difference, you really had me worried there!

 

I'm glad you have a solution, I hope it works for you! Good luck!!

[+kdv]

I'm glad you can tell the difference, you really had me worried there!

 

I'm glad you have a solution, I hope it works for you! Good luck!!

 

Thanks!

[CoyoteRed]

I just find it a shame that I would have to place a cache outside a beautiful park...

I never said you had to place the cache outside the park. I won't simply make the cache a traditional when there are restrictions like you describe.

 

Anyway, in the end it's your cache and you have to deal with it. You asked for opinions and you got it.

 

Hope it works out for you.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I think you're underestimating most cachers. If you place a cache outside a cool park, most folks will check the hours and come back, or go right in if it's the right hours. You don't have to "force" them to check the park out.

 

And for the few cachers that wouldn't care about the park and just the cache, they probably wouldn't have appreciated the park anyway. Those folks have their nose in their GPS till they get to ground zero, look up and find the cache, then hit "Find Next" to go on to the next cache. Those folks are looking for caches only- they ain't interested in hanging out in a park.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the park is worthy of a cache and worthy of a visit this cache is fine.

 

Cache permanence is about longevity of the cache itself. No one day event only caches for example. It's not about access.

 

As for access you can cover that in a note on the cache page. "This cache is in a park that is only open on..."

 

Anybody who loads waypoints into their GPS and hunts blind assumes the risk of bumping into caches with limited access hours among the other issues they can have. When they get to the gate and it says "This park is only open on..." they will know.

 

While you should factor in the stupidity of cachers when seeking the cache, their stupidity is not a factor in getting the cache approved. Any cacher who jumpes the fence in violation of the parks hours should suffer the same consequences that anyone else caught would suffer. Also if you actually want them to see the park, the cache needs to be in the park. Not outside of it. Most cachers will find the cache and move on to the next one. Few will stop and make an afternoon of it and fewer still will come back and enjoy it. Those that didn't know about it and live in the area might.

 

Most all parks limit access to specific hours. Dawn to dusk for example.

 

Which brings us back to where my post started.

 

If it's the park si worthy of a cache, it should have a cache and your cache is fine.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+DavidMac]

Just my 2 cents:

 

I have a hard time seeing that just because a cache isn't available 24/7 means that it is against the guidelines. There are hundreds of examples of caches in areas closed after dark, or not available on weekends, or only open from 8 to 5. The only difference I can see with this cache (from what I've read in this thread) is that the hours are more restricted.

 

After all, there's a reason why we have this attribute:

[+kdv]

If the park is worthy of a cache and worthy of a visit this cache is fine.

 

You tell me if the park is worty of a cache. Here is the official website of the park: http://www.villacaruso.it

The site is all in Italian, but I'd say pictures can tell a thousand words!

This is the English description I included on the cache page (the italian description is much longer, but hey, locals first!):

"Villa Bellosguardo was built on the hills overlooking Lastra in 1585 by the Florentine architect Dosio. It was endowed with a beautiful Italian style garden, a park with statues and fountains. In 1906, the villa was purchased by the celebrated tenor Enrico Caruso, who decided to restore it and built a gallery with an upper terrace. His is also the unusual rhomboidal pattern used in laying out the gardens, which offer a magnificent view of the Arno Valley, and are a favorite spot for afternoon walks.

The municipality of Lastra A Signa, the present owner, has promoted its rebirth as a centre of cultural life for the community. As a result, it is now a stunning location for art, music and concerts etc.

The park, and therefore also the cache, is open to the public (no entrance fee) on Saturday afternoon and Sunday (closed during lunch hour)."

 

And thanks Renegade Knight for stating all my points so much more clearly than I have managed so far (English is not my first - or second - language, so I could use that as an excuse )

[+Rockin Roddy]

The problem isn't that the hours are restricted to day use or such only, it's that the park is only open on the WEEKENDS!!!

[+kdv]

The problem isn't that the hours are restricted to day use or such only, it's that the park is only open on the WEEKENDS!!!

 

Well, at least here in Italy Saturdays and Sundays are considered quite suitable for geocaching

[+tozainamboku]

The problem isn't that the hours are restricted to day use or such only, it's that the park is only open on the WEEKENDS!!!

Yeah and that would be unfair to cachers who work on weekends. Just like a cache that requires a boat would be unfair to a cacher who is afraid of water or a cache with terrain higher than 1 may be unfair to a handicapped cacher. I still like to hear from the Italian reviewer or any reviewer how the permanence requirements applies to hours of availability. If it does, what are minimum hours of availability that are required for a cache to be approved? Cleary caches don't have to be available 24/7.

[+hh1]

If you don't agree with a reviewers decision, write to appeals@geocaching.com as is stated in the guidelines.

[+kdv]

If you don't agree with a reviewers decision, write to appeals@geocaching.com as is stated in the guidelines.

 

*Rocking Roddy mode on*

Hell no, if I do that, out of vengeance they will never publish any cache that I might create in the future!

*Rocking Roddy mode off*

[+DavidMac]

The problem isn't that the hours are restricted to day use or such only, it's that the park is only open on the WEEKENDS!!!

 

I fail to see why that is a problem, when a cache that is only available on weekdays is fine.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I've got a canoe cache listed on another site where the area is only open on Wednesday and Saturdays, and when it's not flooded. Putting the cache outside the area would certainly defeat the whole purpose of the cache.

 

Too bad it's on another site. I don't suppose you have any examples of gc listings that got approved 'notwithstanding' a limited time slot?

 

it wouldn't be too hard to find absolute bunches of caches with limited hours and locked doors in the off hours. Simply look at all the library caches.

 

However I don't think "citing precedent" does a lot of good in situations like this.

 

This sure enough seems like a bogus issue to me. I would like to hear "from the horse's mouth" what the objection is. I cannot comprehend in any way that this cache would violate guidelines as described.

 

i suspect there is some information missing.

 

Sometimes there are (seemingly) arbitrary things that go on between cachers and reviewers for reasons (legitimate or not) to which the general public is not privy.

[+TrailGators]

Hi there,

 

I recently created a new cache here in Italy and was surprised to see that the reviewer considers it to be in violation with the "Cache Permanence" guideline. It is placed inside a community park, owned by the municipality, that is open to the public only on Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday (with a lunch break).

The reviewer claims that he considers this to be a 'violation of the cache permanence guideline, albeit in a different way. I could easily move the cache and place it just outside the park, so it will be accessibile at all times. But the fun of the cache is the park, and if you go there when the park is closed, you will experience nothing special. (For now it's a Regular, but I was toying with the idea of changing it to a multi, with an itinerary to follow in the park.) I think it would be a real waste to have people go up to this spot when the park is closed. Any thoughts?

 

Thanks!

 

kdv

Tons of people work and can only cache on the weekends, so this doesn't cause any issues for those people at all. Anyhow, I don't understand why you couldn't make it a mystery cache called "Saturday Afternoons and Sundays Only," and stick it in the park. If people can't figure that one out then they should get their heads examined... Another idea would be to put clues inside the park to solve a mystery and then put the cache outside the park. This would get around the rule (which I'm not aware of). Caching is about taking people to cool places so this sounds like a good one. Good Luck! Edited March 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[Luckless]

I have a cache that is at the entrance to a nature trail. If you just look for the cache you miss the wildlife (ducks, turtles, fish, frogs etc.) down by the lake so I made a note on the cache page encouraging people to walk the trail down to the lake after finding the cache.

If you put your cache just outside the park with instructions encouraging people to walk the grounds on the days the park is open I would think that would be enough. Maybe call it the Saturday and Sunday cache or something similar then explain that these are the best days to search for the cache because the park is open and you can walk through the grounds after finding the cache. Having the cache outside the park would make it accessible any time. If people chose to look for it on the weekdays that would be their choice and their loss.

Another option would be to use the park as a location to find a virtual clue in a multi. Find something in the park that can barely be seen from the gate. It could be something that can be counted then added/subtracted to get coordinates for the whereabouts of the next clue. Because it can be seen from the gate people would be able to hunt for it and find it when the park is closed. Because it would be better seen from inside the park this might draw people in on those days when the park is open.

[riddlemethis]

We have a cache in our area that is only available at very low tide. No warnings so you most likely will have to return after you figure it out.

 

Yours seems no more inconvenient, especially if you have a warning!

[X-isle]

The problem isn't that the hours are restricted to day use or such only, it's that the park is only open on the WEEKENDS!!!

So what? And what does that have to do with

permanence? I fail to see any of these restrictions in the rules. Would someone be kind enough to show us where?

[X-isle]

If you don't agree with a reviewers decision, write to appeals@geocaching.com as is stated in the guidelines.

 

*Rocking Roddy mode on*

Hell no, if I do that, out of vengeance they will never publish any cache that I might create in the future!

*Rocking Roddy mode off*

BaHahahaaa!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If you don't agree with a reviewers decision, write to appeals@geocaching.com as is stated in the guidelines.

What he said.

 

No one here can speak for Reviewers but Reviewers; the rest is... well, nothing but personal opinions at best.

 

Discuss your case with your Reviewer. If you feel he or she is wrong, ask Groundspeak to adjudicate the issue.

 

The opinions voiced that your Reviewer or Groundspeak would in some way retaliate or punish you for appealing an issue is totally false.

 

Appealing to Groundspeak at least gives you a chance at success, whereas arguing your case here gives you none at all.

 

I can't tell you what they will decide, but I can tell you they will decide it fairly.

 

Good luck.

[Clan Riffster]

I'll toss my two cents in, for what they're worth:

I think a park like the one pictured should have a cache, and it should be placed in the park. Placing it outside the park defeats the whole purpose of the cache, which is to show off this little gem. Those who bark about "The rules are the rules" are certainly correct, however that particular statement is meaningless in this example, since there are no "rules" being violated by this cache. If you wanted to bury a cache on the front steps of a courthouse, I could see where the "Rules Are Rules" crowd might have a valid argument, but not in this case. A good percentage of my caches are not available 24/7. I hope they don't get archived.

 

Keep your lines of communication open with your local reviewer. Don't burn any bridges you might need later. You should be able to resolve this to your satisfaction without stepping on any toes. Let your reviewer know that you don't interpret that particular guideline the same way they do, and ask if you can take it up the chain for consideration. The only answer they can give you is "OK". Then E-mail your quandry to the good folks at Groundspeak for a final answer.

 

Good luck!

-Sean-

[+kazuma]

Hi,

I'm the Geocaching.com reviewer for Italy and since someone has asked for, I think it is correct to add just a few more info regarding this issue. It must be very clear that I don't want to start any flame at all, so I would not argue with anyone on here. I'm more than willing to keep opened any private (email) conversation, but, please, not on here.

 

I would like to start by quoting a post on this thread, and expose my point of view.

 

This sure enough seems like a bogus issue to me. I would like to hear "from the horse's mouth" what the objection is. I cannot comprehend in any way that this cache would violate guidelines as described.

i suspect there is some information missing.

Sometimes there are (seemingly) arbitrary things that go on between cachers and reviewers for reasons (legitimate or not) to which the general public is not privy.

 

The reason why I haven't published the cache, but just kept it on hold (and not archived) is because of a violation of the "private property" rule. Inside the description was mentioned that the location has been bought in 1995 by the municipality but that doesn't mean (at least for me) that the location is a public accessible property. Also the description tells the story of the owner that was a very famous person in Italy, making this some sort of a nice "memory place". There are tons of examples of locations (buildings, parks, big villas and residences, castles) that are owned by the municipality but they are not to be considered "public property"... sort of "semi-public" property (hard to explain it in English, I apologize). They are normally open to public access on special occasion. Someone has pointed me that the location could be what some call "stately home". By reading the very short amount of time the park is opened, I though that I was facing this type of situation, so I had to pull out the "rules violation" issue.

 

In addition to what I have seen as a "rule violation" I added a big concern I had, that wasn't a rule violation (I have said that as the first thing). I am talking about the very short time of accessibility of the cache, that is less than 7% of the time. The first email I got from the owner after my post in the cache page was the reply in which she informed me that she would have moved the cache outside the park. I thanked her for accepting my concerns confirming that I was really worried (not simply concerned) about that issue, probably more than the private property issue, (that often could be easily solved).

 

As a reviewer I have the role of trying to verify a cache and if it violates the rule not publishing it, opening at the same time a communication channel with the owner to understand if we can do anything about that. Maybe, in very some special situation, this means that the cache could be published without any change. The opener of this post knows this very well, since some time ago she had a cache published even if it was violating a guideline rule. Communication (as someone has said in a previous post) is definitely the key word.

 

But as a reviewer I have also the role (and I also think the freedom) to express all my concerns on a cache when I think a cache could really be on a borderline of a rule and especially when I think that there is something that could be a cause of discomfort in the geocaching community. Expressing my concerns doesn't mean "I will not publish and I will archive your cache right away" but it means "I have put your cache on hold, because I have noticed this... I can see here a problem, please email me regarding this issue". This happened a few times already.

In this case I was worried and I have expressed my concern about the short availability time of the cache, asking to get in touch with me for discussing the issue. The first mail I have received was the one communicating me that the cache was going to be moved. No mention about the fact the cache was on a public place (so not on a private property) and no response regarding the opening time issue. It is hard for me to think this as a way to discuss the issue.

 

Getting back on the reasons of my concern, I've referred to the "Cache Permanence" rule because I was personally noticing some sort of link between the fact a geocacher expects a cache to be available for a long time and the fact the cache is available but only on a few hours a week. This doesn't mean the rule has been violated. I just saw a similarity and I even opened the discussion of the issue with other rewievers to check (or even validate) my thought.

Plus, in the description there isn't any mention of the real opening hours of the park. It is simply mentioned "the cache is open on Saturday morning and Sunday all day except lunch time". Even an Italian like me could be confused by this. Where I live stores close for "lunch break" from 12:30 or 13:00 or 13:30 and open from 1 to 2 hours later. When I go in my vacation house the timing is totally different: in summer they even close at 14:00 and open at 17:00 or 17:30. If an Italian like me is confused, what would say who comes from countries where this nonsense break doesn't exists? I don't want to be 'bad' but not all geocachers do act with a 'geocaching mind': some plays just for the numbers and maybe they get mad if they spend time for reaching a spot and not being able to access to the cache because they got there just 5 minutes after what they have thought was the closing time. Maybe their reaction could not be a good one. I know this could be just an extreme vision of the problem. But I think it is my role to point this out. Many here have also pointed out different scenarios... some very close to my thinking.

 

But, since there wouldn't be any violation of the rules, if the owner wanted the cache to be there that bad, I would have just required to be very clear in the description and clearly inform the geocachers about the exact opening time, but I would have published the cache. I would have personally not consider this as a "good cache", even if the place is worth a visit. But that's it. Those are strictly personal feelings that I would have never pulled out in an official communication.

 

At this point I really would like to thank whoever have reached this line... thank you for spending the time in reading my thoughts. Please feel free to get in touch with me anytime for any further information regarding this issue. Please do not start any flame on here.

 

Best regards,

Kazuma

Edited March 21, 2007 by kazuma

[AZcachemeister]

Here in the USA, we have many Museum caches...only open 1 or 2 days a week, and yes, restricted hours.

 

It is my responsibility to READ the cache page and know the hours of operation.

 

These are older caches, and are virtuals, (so no 'hidden on 'semi-private' property' issues)...obviously that solution is no longer available, but a similar approach can be employed by making it a multi/puzzle cache. The seeker must enter the park and visit several key locations to somehow get information that will allow them to find the container hidden outside the park.

 

Since no container is inside the park, any idiots climbing the fence, to count the cherubs on the fountain are just idiots climbing the fence to count cherubs.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I think kazuma explained the situation well. I was going to ask about permission, but I didn't want to steer the conversation away from the perceived issue of the park's hours of operations.

 

So, it sounds like all you need to do is get specific permission from the park and you can get the cache published.

[+tozainamboku]

I want to thank kazuma for posting here. As Confucius' Cat points out, we often only see one side in these threads where there is a dispute between a cache hider and a reviewer. I also think that Clan Riffster gives good advice here

Keep your lines of communication open with your local reviewer. Don't burn any bridges you might need later. You should be able to resolve this to your satisfaction without stepping on any toes. Let your reviewer know that you don't interpret that particular guideline the same way they do, and ask if you can take it up the chain for consideration. The only answer they can give you is "OK". Then E-mail your quandry to the good folks at Groundspeak for a final answer.

My experience is that you can work with your local reviewer to resolve most issues with cache approvals. Find out if the reviewer needs additional information in order to approve the cache. Work with your local approver to understand what changes, if any, are needed in order to get your cache approved. If you still can't come to an agreement, you can appeal to Groundspeak.

[+kdv]

I am sorry to have to 'bore' everyone with the nitty gritty details of the approval procedures that were/are followed for this cache (and also for reacting this late, but I have been in transit for the last day and a half). But I do find it necessary to clarify a few points, since in his post kazuma seems to imply that the non-(immediate)-publication was based on the 'private property guideline. This is not the message I got from him. I'll explain.

When kazuma evaluated my cache and mentioned the two issues (private property/cache permanence), I indeed replied to him saying that I would move the cache. I also expressed my joy of the fact that the private property guidelines apparently were going to be enforced much more strictly from now on (in fact I told him I anticipated that this way at least half of all existing Italian caches would have to be archived). kazuma replied saying that "this wouldn't be an easy thing to achieve, that he will check every cache that anyone refers to him as being on private property and that not all caches on provate properties are in violation of the guidelines " and continuing with (I added the caps):

"HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF YOUR CACHE, I WAS MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE 'EXTREMELY REDUCED' HOURS OF ACCESS TO THE CACHE (ABOUT 12/14 HOURS OUT OF 168)."

(I am using quotation marks, although it is my translation of his original Italian message)

This led me (apperently erroneously??) to believe that the issue to solve was that of the hours of access, not some 'private propert' issue. It also made me want to ask for input from others in this forum.

When kazuma 'discovered' that I had started this thread, he sent me a mail accusing me of misrepresenting the situation, ending his message with the 'eloquent' salutation "No Regards".

 

I have a few more things to say about this, which I will do based on some statements in kazuma's post in this thread:

 

 

Hi,

I'm the Geocaching.com reviewer for Italy and since someone has asked for, I think it is correct to add just a few more info regarding this issue. It must be very clear that I don't want to start any flame at all, so I would not argue with anyone on here. I'm more than willing to keep opened any private (email) conversation, but, please, not on here.

That someone would be me (or maybe one of the someones, I don't know).

 

The reason why I haven't published the cache, but just kept it on hold (and not archived) is because of a violation of the "private property" rule.

Unfortunately this was not clear to me at all. I again refer to the phrase:

"HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF YOUR CACHE, I WAS MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE 'EXTREMELY REDUCED' HOURS OF ACCESS TO THE CACHE (ABOUT 12/14 HOURS OUT OF 168)."

 

The first mail I have received was the one communicating me that the cache was going to be moved. No mention about the fact the cache was on a public place (so not on a private property) and no response regarding the opening time issue. It is hard for me to think this as a way to discuss the issue.

I did not mention that the cache was on a public place, because in the cache description I had compiled, was mentioned both in Italian and in English that the terrain was property of the local municipality.

 

Plus, in the description there isn't any mention of the real opening hours of the park. It is simply mentioned "the cache is open on Saturday morning and Sunday all day except lunch time". Even an Italian like me could be confused by this. Where I live stores close for "lunch break" from 12:30 or 13:00 or 13:30 and open from 1 to 2 hours later.

 

This issue was not brought to my attention, so I was not aware of its existence. The reason why I hadn't posted specific opening hours was that I found a slight discrepancy between the hours posted on the park gate, and the opening hours mentioned on the corresponding website. Had this issue been brought to my attention, I would have had the chance to resolve it. (It eventually was brought to my attention after this whole issue had already escalated completely.)

[+sTeamTraen]

I think you two need to sit down over a beer and discuss all those geocaching-related things you have in common, along with a side order of "gee, e-mail conversations with a busy reviewer sure make for misunderstandings sometime, huh?".

[+Confucius' Cat]

I think you two need to sit down over a beer and discuss all those geocaching-related things you have in common, along with a side order of "gee, e-mail conversations with a busy reviewer sure make for misunderstandings sometime, huh?".

I second

[+TrailGators]

I think the OP posted here to gain a better understanding of the guidelines. They can be muddy at times. I also think the reviewer is trying to crack down on the permission issue that many of these threads have also discussed. So I think it's OK to make sure that there is permission. I kind of wish this happened more. All the other stuff is minor and should be easy to work out. The time thing was a non-issue since there is no guideline about that. Anyhow, I hope you two work it out.