Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Plasma Boy

Inappropriate Log Information?

Recommended Posts

There are many clever people in geocaching and maybe one of them could provide a suggestion or script that would remove the parts of the tagline for Plasma Boy.

 

It would be a simple SQL statement run on the Database. Give me access and I can clear everything up for you :yikes::laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

This is getting off topic.

 

The short version is that an actual paid employee of Groundspeak has stated that including a personal agenda statement is not permitted in cache logs. This item has been brought to the forums and now everyone that takes the time to read the forums should at least be aware that having statements like those or any variation on other like themes is not permitted. There are many clever people in geocaching and maybe one of them could provide a suggestion or script that would remove the parts of the tagline for Plasma Boy. That would at least resolve this problem for everyone.

 

As for dealing with violations after publication of the listing, the only method is from people reporting the problem to their local reviewer. That is the system that is in place. Like others have said, I would like to trust players to not make changes that reflect badly on the game after a reviewer took the time to make sure the listing was okay. It might seem funny but it only hurts the game in the end.

 

I disagree. This thread is on topic. The topic is "Solicitous cache guidelines". The title is "Inappropriate Log Information".

 

When I noticed that my title was inaccurate, I tried to change it, but guess what? Groundspeak in their wisdom do not allow topic title changes by the OP. I assume this is to stop the OP from changing the title to something else that may not be appropriate. Bait and switch. This is exactly what they should do to cache names. I have not seen the code for the cache placement form on-line, but if they just copy the code for emailed notification for coordinate changes, I figure it will take about two minutes. It is not rocket science. Basic html coding.

 

My tag line is not the issue. It was an example of the issue. My situation is resolved. I have been told to remove the logs and I have started doing it. I disagree with the judgment, but will comply. While I am complying, I feel it is my right as a member to question Groundspeak's policies here in an open forum. It is also other member's right to agree or disagree in an open forum.

 

I would also like to believe that cachers are honest and give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would also like to believe that everyone drives safely and obeys the laws of the road, but we have law enforcement officers to check that they do.

 

As to taking over three years to check caches. This may be true in Bedrock with Fred Flintstone in charge of checking all of the stone tablets, but in the real world, all of the listings are in a big database. I very simple SQL query using a few keywords of the name field of that database would kick out a list of possible illegal cache names. Probably a couple hundred. These caches could either be flagged and forwarded to the reviewer for a re-review or to a paid employee to re-review it. Many of those could be dismissed with a cursory glance. The rest could be investigated. I would say a couple of hours should be enough.

 

I do not have a problem with solicitation. There should be rules. If the rules are intelligent and applied equally then every one should be happy. The example was given about "dog fighting or pedophile" caches cropping up.

 

The first rule you make is if the subject is "AGAINST" US law then you disallow it. I think the US legal system outlines pretty well what is illegal and moral. Use that as a bench mark.

 

Just saying religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not allowed is too black and white. There are grey areas. I do not have a problem with them so long as they promote generic topics. "Believe in God", "Don't believe in God", "Donate your blood or organs or your time", "disease awareness", "Support our Troops", "Vote for who ever you like, just get out and vote, it is your right". Asking for specific things or for profit should be forbidden, but I do not see anything wrong with general supportive subjects.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

If you can promote this in your profile page that's great. Why not change your GC name to Give_Blood_Save_A_Life so as to draw more attention thereto?

Share this post


Link to post

If you can promote this in your profile page that's great. Why not change your GC name to Give_Blood_Save_A_Life so as to draw more attention thereto?

 

Yet another thing you can not change in Groundspeak. To the best of my knowledge, you can no longer change your GC name.

Share this post


Link to post

If you can promote this in your profile page that's great. Why not change your GC name to Give_Blood_Save_A_Life so as to draw more attention thereto?

 

Yet another thing you can not change in Groundspeak. To the best of my knowledge, you can no longer change your GC name.

 

You can, I think it's 30$ though..

Share this post


Link to post

This is getting off topic.

 

The short version is that an actual paid employee of Groundspeak has stated that including a personal agenda statement is not permitted in cache logs. This item has been brought to the forums and now everyone that takes the time to read the forums should at least be aware that having statements like those or any variation on other like themes is not permitted. There are many clever people in geocaching and maybe one of them could provide a suggestion or script that would remove the parts of the tagline for Plasma Boy. That would at least resolve this problem for everyone.

 

As for dealing with violations after publication of the listing, the only method is from people reporting the problem to their local reviewer. That is the system that is in place. Like others have said, I would like to trust players to not make changes that reflect badly on the game after a reviewer took the time to make sure the listing was okay. It might seem funny but it only hurts the game in the end.

 

I disagree. This thread is on topic. The topic is "Solicitous cache guidelines". The title is "Inappropriate Log Information".

 

When I noticed that my title was inaccurate, I tried to change it, but guess what? Groundspeak in their wisdom do not allow topic title changes by the OP. I assume this is to stop the OP from changing the title to something else that may not be appropriate. Bait and switch. This is exactly what they should do to cache names. I have not seen the code for the cache placement form on-line, but if they just copy the code for emailed notification for coordinate changes, I figure it will take about two minutes. It is not rocket science. Basic html coding.

 

My tag line is not the issue. It was an example of the issue. My situation is resolved. I have been told to remove the logs and I have started doing it. I disagree with the judgment, but will comply. While I am complying, I feel it is my right as a member to question Groundspeak's policies here in an open forum. It is also other member's right to agree or disagree in an open forum.

 

I would also like to believe that cachers are honest and give them the benefit of the doubt, but I would also like to believe that everyone drives safely and obeys the laws of the road, but we have law enforcement officers to check that they do.

 

As to taking over three years to check caches. This may be true in Bedrock with Fred Flintstone in charge of checking all of the stone tablets, but in the real world, all of the listings are in a big database. I very simple SQL query using a few keywords of the name field of that database would kick out a list of possible illegal cache names. Probably a couple hundred. These caches could either be flagged and forwarded to the reviewer for a re-review or to a paid employee to re-review it. Many of those could be dismissed with a cursory glance. The rest could be investigated. I would say a couple of hours should be enough.

 

I do not have a problem with solicitation. There should be rules. If the rules are intelligent and applied equally then every one should be happy. The example was given about "dog fighting or pedophile" caches cropping up.

 

The first rule you make is if the subject is "AGAINST" US law then you disallow it. I think the US legal system outlines pretty well what is illegal and moral. Use that as a bench mark.

 

Just saying religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not allowed is too black and white. There are grey areas. I do not have a problem with them so long as they promote generic topics. "Believe in God", "Don't believe in God", "Donate your blood or organs or your time", "disease awareness", "Support our Troops", "Vote for who ever you like, just get out and vote, it is your right". Asking for specific things or for profit should be forbidden, but I do not see anything wrong with general supportive subjects.

 

What you are espousing is your personal opinion only. Saying there are gray areas is your thought. The people at Groundspeak do not think the same way you so and because of your passion for what you consider a worth cause, you think they should change their rules.

 

As a reviewer it is very hard for me to have to turn down a cache sometimes because of perceived commercial aspects or agendas that I feel might be worthy causes. However I do understand the need for such things. As has been pointed out before, where does it end? People are passionate about many subjects and they would all love to solicit aid for, urge support for or publicize their cause. Geocaching is about going out, finding a cache and having fun, Not having to read someone's cache page urging people to believe in god, support some foundation or buy a car (examples only). I dont' like it when I find material in a cache that was put there to solicit support for some cause. But that is my opinion only. I ignore it and the stuff stays there for the next person.

 

Remember that Groundspeak offers a service in geocaching.com. A service that you may or may not pay for. As with any company that offers a service they set the rules for that service and you are free to use the service as long as you follow the rules.

 

Those of us who review caches are NOT paid and are all doing it because we volunteer our time to give back into the sport we love. Every one of us is different and will look at things slightly in a slightly different way or interpret the guidelines slightly differently. You have mentioned as part of your dissertion, the seeming unequal application of the guidelines across the country. Consider that this is a large country and not all areas are the same, nor can they be looked at the same when we review caches. Each area has it's own challenges and problems. That is why Groundspeak has guidelines and not hard and fast rules. If you ask me why I may allow a cache that another reviewer wouldn't all I can say is that I review a different area and have a slightly different interpretation.

 

Even as a reviewer I disagree with some of the guidelines but I can understand the reasoning behind them. Your statement about using the US legal system as a basis for what should and should not be allowed might not be a good idea. That would allow for people to start pushing almost any agenda. Freedom of religion is allowed. There are some religious groups that abhor blood transfusions. Do you think your cause would strike a chord with them?? The wrong chord maybe. At the same time they would be pushing their agenda on you which might put you over the deep end. By going the way they are, Groundspeak has so far managed to avoid most of the problems that occur when someone solicits or tries to push an agenda, that while for a worthwhile cause, is still only their agenda and not everyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What you are espousing is your personal opinion only. Saying there are gray areas is your thought. The people at Groundspeak do not think the same way you so and because of your passion for what you consider a worth cause, you think they should change their rules.

 

Even as a reviewer I disagree with some of the guidelines but I can understand the reasoning behind them. Your statement about using the US legal system as a basis for what should and should not be allowed might not be a good idea. That would allow for people to start pushing almost any agenda. Freedom of religion is allowed. There are some religious groups that abhor blood transfusions. Do you think your cause would strike a chord with them?? The wrong chord maybe. At the same time they would be pushing their agenda on you which might put you over the deep end. By going the way they are, Groundspeak has so far managed to avoid most of the problems that occur when someone solicits or tries to push an agenda, that while for a worthwhile cause, is still only their agenda and not everyone else's.

 

Yes, this is my personal opinion. I do not expect that Groundspeak will listen to it or act upon it. I do expect to be allowed to voice my opinions in an open forum.

 

I only know of one religion that abhor blood transfusion. They should have the right to promote that view, just as I should be allowed to promote mine. I respect their their view, I am sure that they would respect mine. I did a google search of people who are against blood donations and found only one group.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post
They should have the right to promote that view, just as I should be allowed to promote mine. I respect their their view, I am sure that they would respect mine.

You have hit on the core reason none are allowed. It is a game. There is nothing to promote here but fun. Have fun geocaching. Buy your own web space and promote your cause all you want. I am here to have fun, not to be preached to about this cause or that cause. The beauty of this site is that is all about having fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Caches are approved such as GCVP4D, GCX1DJ, or GC1402N? The last one there is full-cache advertisement for a Christian radio station.

I can guarantee that the last one was changed after being listed. That one isn't going to stay that way long. The second one has been changed from the way the description reads. Just because you see something on a cache page doesn't mean it was listed exactly as you see it. This has been proven over and over.

 

Still, it is apples and oranges. Looking at those cache owners, their logs on found caches don't scream a Christian agenda. Every one of PB's logs on caches screamed his agenda. Apples and oranges.

 

No Mtn... apples and apples. An agenda is an agenda. If it's wrong in the log, it's wrong on the cache page. In fact, it's WORSE on the cache page because logs get buried after 5 or so finds.

 

If the rule is that you don't flog an agenda, that's cool. The rule should be enforced consistently. If the rule isn't going to be applied consistently, then it should be dropped.

 

If those caches were changed after being listed, that's fine. Consider them officially complained about, and I ask that the rules on such matters please be enforced with the same zeal that is being shown toward Plasma-boy. I'll probably have a few more to report in the next while.

 

I think that's a fair request.

 

And make no mistake - I think you are absolutely correct about his tag promoting an agenda, and I do think he should stop using it... but to centre him out and ask him to do something you're not willing to do (manually change 1000 logs, when a simple "stop using that tag" and "you must edit any logs that a cache owner requests to be edited" would suffice) when there are obvious cache page violations that can be found with simple searches of caches strikes me as highly unfair. From a pure optics point of view, it might look better just to say "yes, we're being unfair but that's the way it is" rather than try and couch it.

 

I guess my point is that I do find that rules are not enforced consistently by gc.com, and that it sometimes appears that many agenda are winked at or even allowed. As I'm trying to point out here, I don't see an uproar over obvious Christian agenda on CACHE PAGES, but someone clearly got in a snit about log contents. To me, that's a cart-before-the-horse situation. Or maybe it's just that these rules are only enforced when someone complains? In that case, the real rule is some kind of "tyranny of the minority" thing where we all have to be careful of the most unreasonably sensitive person who might complain.

 

The best part is that I'm not even allowed to give blood because I passed out once while they drew 8 vials for a test.

Edited by geoSquid

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask you this... how many of you have emailed the contact address about the caches above? The "rule" says that is the way to handle it. Someone did that with PB's logs. You can complain here all you want, but if you want to follow the "rule" you are talking about, then you have to follow what it says to make these complaints. The forums are not the place for it. Maybe there were multiple complaints about PB's logs. I have no idea and frankly it isn't within my job duties to know. Can anyone honestly say that they wrote to the contact address and complained about these before I just posted this?

 

I did. Since I know them, I wrote to the reviewer directly about GC1402N. It's been changed. It is now just historical information on that page. If these (or any) caches bother you, the follow the proper procedure as someone did with PB.

 

And it is apples and oranges. I said this trying to get back on topic:

Looking at those cache owners, their logs on found caches don't scream a Christian agenda.

We are talking about user logs on cache pages, not the descriptions on cache pages. It is two different things and they are handled differently. That is why I put "rule" in quotation marks. You call it a rule. It isn't a rule. It is a guideline. The reason why is to allow flexibility where there can be flexibility. As I said before:

Let me expand briefly. When logging a cache, it is OK to say, "A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner." It is not OK to say on every log, "Hey, I own a diner called mtn-man's diner in Atlanta. We make the best gumbo in the world and ship to you where ever you are. See my site at www.mtn-mangumbo.com for more information." If you have rules, you don't get to tell people about that great restaurant you found down the road. There is nothing wrong with that. The second example is a clear advertisement though. Those additions to logs are using the site to solicit business. While blood donation is not "business" so to speak, it is still a solicitation.

 

:D I do make the best gumbo in the world though. :D He he. Don't worry, you can't buy if from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Caches are approved such as GCVP4D, GCX1DJ, or GC1402N? The last one there is full-cache advertisement for a Christian radio station.

I can guarantee that the last one was changed after being listed. That one isn't going to stay that way long. The second one has been changed from the way the description reads. Just because you see something on a cache page doesn't mean it was listed exactly as you see it. This has been proven over and over.

 

Still, it is apples and oranges. Looking at those cache owners, their logs on found caches don't scream a Christian agenda. Every one of PB's logs on caches screamed his agenda. Apples and oranges.

 

No Mtn... apples and apples. An agenda is an agenda. If it's wrong in the log, it's wrong on the cache page. In fact, it's WORSE on the cache page because logs get buried after 5 or so finds.

 

If the rule is that you don't flog an agenda, that's cool. The rule should be enforced consistently. If the rule isn't going to be applied consistently, then it should be dropped.

 

If those caches were changed after being listed, that's fine. Consider them officially complained about, and I ask that the rules on such matters please be enforced with the same zeal that is being shown toward Plasma-boy. I'll probably have a few more to report in the next while.

 

I think that's a fair request.

 

And make no mistake - I think you are absolutely correct about his tag promoting an agenda, and I do think he should stop using it... but to centre him out and ask him to do something you're not willing to do (manually change 1000 logs, when a simple "stop using that tag" and "you must edit any logs that a cache owner requests to be edited" would suffice) when there are obvious cache page violations that can be found with simple searches of caches strikes me as highly unfair. From a pure optics point of view, it might look better just to say "yes, we're being unfair but that's the way it is" rather than try and couch it.

 

I guess my point is that I do find that rules are not enforced consistently by gc.com, and that it sometimes appears that many agenda are winked at or even allowed. As I'm trying to point out here, I don't see an uproar over obvious Christian agenda on CACHE PAGES, but someone clearly got in a snit about log contents. To me, that's a cart-before-the-horse situation. Or maybe it's just that these rules are only enforced when someone complains? In that case, the real rule is some kind of "tyranny of the minority" thing where we all have to be careful of the most unreasonably sensitive person who might complain.

 

The best part is that I'm not even allowed to give blood because I passed out once while they drew 8 vials for a test.

 

Agenda being what it is I would agree with you that this is apples and apples. The 'rule' is applied equally. If it isn't then it is those that post it initially that cause the inconsistency. Cause and Effect right?

 

No Mtn... apples and apples. An agenda is an agenda. If it's wrong in the log, it's wrong on the cache page. In fact, it's WORSE on the cache page because logs get buried after 5 or so finds.

 

I agree like before that personal agenda has no business being anywhere on a cache page, in the description or logs.

 

mtn-man did not center out anyone in this. If anything the topic started with the person that was affected centering themselves out to raise awareness of what had happened. When it comes to consistency I am not seeing what point that is trying to be made. When we are made aware of something it gets addressed, plain and simple. During review of geocaches we catch all kinds of guideline items like agenda and they are cleared up either by the owner and the reviewer or the appeals department.

 

We reviewers are not log police. When another player brings something to a reviewer or Groundspeak it is then taken care of in a positive or negative way depending. What mtn-man is saying is that people need to speak up for action to be taken. That creates the consistency you speak of. We are reasonably consistent about handling complaints.

 

From the Groundspeak Terms of Use (bolding and colour added for emphasis)

 

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

The Groundspeak Forums, accessible through the “Discuss Geocaching” link in the Site’s navigation bar as well as through other links, are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, post in the Groundspeak Forums area.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

A Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

B Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.

 

C Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that you do not have a right to transmit under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationship.

 

D Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of any person, including without limitation under any privacy or publicity rights.

 

E Upload, post or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation.

F Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that contains viruses or any other computer code, files or programs which interrupt, destroy, limit the functionality of, or cause damage to the Site or any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment.

 

G Disrupt the normal flow of dialogue or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges.

 

H Interfere with or disrupt the Site or servers or networks connected to the Site, or fail to comply with any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Site.

 

I Violate any applicable local, state, national or international law.

 

J "Stalk," harass, or otherwise harm another Site user.

 

K Collect or store personal data about other Site users.

 

L Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that describing the use of the forums? I thought we were talking about cache listings and logs. Just want to make sure we are clear about what rules those are.

Share this post


Link to post

Short and easy, delete the top two lines, keep the third.

 

Basically, the only thing that makes this a solicitation is the inclusion of the phone number, the 2nd line, but deletion of both the top two clear up any confusion and keep the spirit of the message alive.

 

And for the record..............................

 

BLOOD DONATIONS SAVE LIVES

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that describing the use of the forums? I thought we were talking about cache listings and logs. Just want to make sure we are clear about what rules those are.

 

The "Terms of Use" can be found at the bottom of pages on www.geocaching.com and the term 'Site' applies to all aspects. Section 4 says "Publishing Tools and Forums" so it applies to both.

 

Copy this into a browser to see the image

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/e391ed6c-d...9ffd945cf57.jpg

 

Link fixed

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post

We've talked about logs and we've talked about cache listings. From what I understand, the guidelines are the same for each.

 

This weekend I pulled into an area to do a group of three caches. Turned out that two of them were beyond an admission gate and I would have to pay $20 for us to enter and find the caches.

 

On closer inspection, I discovered that the placer is not a geocacher, but rather an account created by the organization for the specific purpose of placing these two caches. The cache description is an open advertisement and even contains the admission fees.

 

Since this clearly violtes the guidelines, I tried reporting them and was told:

 

A. It is a non-profit.

B. They asked for permission.

 

Looks like a giant can of worms to me. PlasmaBoy's logs would meet condition a), but he didn't ask for permission. If he had, I wonder what the outcome would have been?

 

I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that rules are rules and they must be followed. Unless you ask for permission first?

 

Edit: The system changed my B point into a smiley, so I changed the format.

Edited by danoshimano

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that rules are rules and they must be followed. Unless you ask for permission first?

Just to be clear, to be correct that should read:

I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that guidelines are partially flexible and if you ask for permission first you might get it.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that rules are rules and they must be followed. Unless you ask for permission first?

Just to be clear, to be correct that should read:

I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that guidelines are partially flexible and if you ask for permission first you might get it.

 

Right. Which leads to inconsistency, no? It comes down to someone saying, "oh, I guess we'll support that, but no, not that other thing." Of course I do admit that Groundspeak is free to promote or squash what ever they want. It's their show and being a monopoly means even more freedom to do as they will.

 

I would encourage PlasmaBoy to start fresh and ask for permission. I don't see how he could be turned down.

Share this post


Link to post

Inconsistency? Maybe, yeah.

Flexibility? ABSOLUTELY.

 

You see the glass as half empty. I see the glass as half full.

 

I do see how he would be turned down though. He is one guy who has no connection to any organization. If you notice, the ones who have asked for permission and have gotten it are those from the highest levels of these organizations. For Jeep, it isn't a guy who owns a Jeep that put together the JTB promotion. It isn't even a dealer that did it. It was the corporate entity.

 

FYI, the Red Cross knows all about geocaching. They ordered Groundspeak to stop using the red cross symbol style for the attribute image for the "Needs Maintenance" log. If you notice, it is now a white cross on a burgundy background. Owner maintenance is a green cross. Sounds like they are not interested in any connection with geocaching at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

FYI, the Red Cross knows all about geocaching. They ordered Groundspeak to stop using the red cross symbol style for the attribute image for the "Needs Maintenance" log. If you notice, it is now a white cross on a burgundy background. Owner maintenance is a green cross. Sounds like they are not interested in any connection with geocaching at this point.

 

That is interesting considering the Red Cross is currelnty being sued by Bayer for violating the licensing of the logo from Bayer. Article

Share this post


Link to post

Inconsistency? Maybe, yeah.

Flexibility? ABSOLUTELY.

 

You see the glass as half empty.

 

While I understand how you arrived at that conclusion, it is incorrect. It *is* possible to observe and comment without being negative. Sorry if you have seen my posts as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I don't respect Groundspeak's position, or some of their methods of operation. But I would take the advice to back off, because TPTB have been known to get nasty when challenged.
If Groundspeak displayed any kind of consistency, I may think differently about them.
I don't think anyone has made any argument against the cause (donate blood), just that rules are rules and they must be followed. Unless you ask for permission first?
Of course I do admit that Groundspeak is free to promote or squash what ever they want. It's their show and being a monopoly means even more freedom to do as they will.

You've taken a swing at Groundspeak in every one of your posts. Sorry that I don't see that as "comment(s) without being negative", and especially the first two posts I've quoted completely. I like the flexibility they show with some things. I am glad they are guidelines and not rules.

 

Keith Watson, very interesting post about Bayer.

Share this post


Link to post

Mtn-man, in your posts, you went on in great length about how commercial et al caches are not allowed, verboten, banned, not good, rules are rules. You clarified about TB's being exempt from these rules. Fair enough.

 

Now, when danoshimano brings forward a blatant breech of the rules and says that when he brought it to the attention of the proper authorities (as you say is our duty as cachers to rat each other out), he is told that the "CACHE" is non profit and they asked for permission. Their first reason is not an exemption but is one of the not allowed categories. They also charge an admission so the cacher is out of pocket. The second reason is false also because these are hard fast rules and there are no exceptions for "CACHES". PERIOD! FULLSTOP!

 

Caches that Solicit

 

<B>Solicitations are off-limits</B>. 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.

 

You say you like the flexibility they show with somethings. Why are you now calling them guidelines when all along you have been treating them as rules. Rules do not make exceptions as in my case, but now when a blatant infraction is brought to Groundspeaks attention, we are told that they do make exceptions.

 

I am still removing my logs , I have accepted that Groundspeak guidelines change with the wind (or whim), but why is this allowed and mine is not. When I asked about a CBS cache, I was turned down flat, being referred to the guidelines as these kind of caches are "OFF LIMITS".

 

CONSISTENCY MUCH ????

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

You've taken a swing at Groundspeak in every one of your posts.

 

I can understand why you only see it as a "swing", rather than observations and opinions. Perhaps even constructive criticism. If we just brush such things aside with endless "boosting" then improvement becomes difficult.

 

I see the glass as a good start, with lots of room to keep filling 'er up!

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches placed in parks and conservations areas that charge an admission, the 2 in question here were submitted and referred to Groundspeak. Groundspeak then gave permission as indicated in the description and my non-deletable publish log, thereby indicating that permission was given and not just added by the cache owner. I really don't see the 2 cases as comparable, the OP was soliciting for Canadian Blood Services (not the Red Cross, they have not collected donated blood in Canada for several years) without asking prior permission to do so over 1000 times. The caches were submitted, referred, permission granted and listed, the prior cache did not grant automatic permission for the second either. There has been a number of times I have arrived at the door step of a park to discover there was an admission with no indication on the cache page, the park was non-profit but I would rather know before I made the plan and trip, we even have an attribute now to indicate there is a charge for entry into a non-profit park.

 

If you have further examples, email me and I will look into them.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches placed in parks and conservations areas that charge an admission, the 2 in question here were submitted and referred to Groundspeak. Groundspeak then gave permission as indicated in the description and my non-deletable publish log, thereby indicating that permission was given and not just added by the cache owner. I really don't see the 2 cases as comparable, the OP was soliciting for Canadian Blood Services (not the Red Cross, they have not collected donated blood in Canada for several years) without asking prior permission to do so over 1000 times. The caches were submitted, referred, permission granted and listed, the prior cache did not grant automatic permission for the second either. There has been a number of times I have arrived at the door step of a park to discover there was an admission with no indication on the cache page, the park was non-profit but I would rather know before I made the plan and trip, we even have an attribute now to indicate there is a charge for entry into a non-profit park.

 

If you have further examples, email me and I will look into them.

 

Now stand by one, Cache-tech. The rule/guideline clearly states as I have shown above. Solicitation is off limits for caches. That means that Groundspeak should not be allowed to grant permission to anything against the rules. If the owner does not respect their own rules why should those who are spending money to belong. IMHO, the whole permission thing is just a back door way for Groundspeak to get around their own rules for their own reasons.

 

Groundspeak and their volunteers can make up all the loop holes they want, but it is wrong. What is good for us gooses is apparently not good for the ganders (Groundspeak). If you make rules, stick to them or they become useless and questionable.

 

BTW, show me in the guidelines where it states that cachers can request permission to bend the guidelines. It doesn't. In Canada and I am sure in the states our legal system is based on something called the "Rule Of Law" which means that even those who pose the laws and those who enforce the laws, MUST OBEY the laws.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

There are many caches placed in parks and conservations areas that charge an admission, the 2 in question here were submitted and referred to Groundspeak. Groundspeak then gave permission as indicated in the description and my non-deletable publish log, thereby indicating that permission was given and not just added by the cache owner. I really don't see the 2 cases as comparable, the OP was soliciting for Canadian Blood Services (not the Red Cross, they have not collected donated blood in Canada for several years) without asking prior permission to do so over 1000 times. The caches were submitted, referred, permission granted and listed, the prior cache did not grant automatic permission for the second either. There has been a number of times I have arrived at the door step of a park to discover there was an admission with no indication on the cache page, the park was non-profit but I would rather know before I made the plan and trip, we even have an attribute now to indicate there is a charge for entry into a non-profit park.

 

If you have further examples, email me and I will look into them.

 

Now stand by one, Cache-tech. The rule/guideline clearly states as I have shown above. Solicitation is off limits for caches. That means that Groundspeak should not be allowed to grant permission to anything against the rules. If the owner does not respect their own rules why should those who are spending money to belong. IMHO, the whole permission thing is just a back door way for Groundspeak to get around their own rules for their own reasons.

 

Groundspeak and their volunteers can make up all the loop holes they want, but it is wrong. What is good for us gooses is apparently not good for the ganders (Groundspeak). If you make rules, stick to them or they become useless and questionable.

 

BTW, show me in the guidelines where it states that cachers can request permission to bend the guidelines. It doesn't. In Canada and I am sure in the states our legal system is based on something called the "Rule Of Law" which means that even those who pose the laws and those who enforce the laws, MUST OBEY the laws.

 

The mentioned caches were placed in a non-profit admission park, of which there are many caches placed within by a number of cachers. The submitted caches, referred to Groundspeak and obtained permission for their caches, just like any number of other cache placers.

 

You posted a solicitation without prior permission on every cache you logged, thereby, if you find my cache, you are using my cache page for your solicitation. Would you mind if I deleted your logs to remove your solicitation from my caches if you found them? Regardless, bottom line, you posted a solicitation, no matter the cause, on every cache you posted a log to without asking permission, after an inquiry that was directed to Groundspeak, you were asked to remove your solicitation. If the cache placer were to start logging caches, "Found your cache, thanks, by the way visit xyz park, admission only $1", then they would be advised of the same.

 

Further, the guidelines are as follows

 

Commercial Caches

 

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. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first. If you do not have advance permission, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak.

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are 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.

 

Your logs solicit, the caches might be considered commercial and followed the above guidelines, as mentioned, two totally different guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

The examples I posted -- which I didn't name because I had no issue with the reviewer of said caches -- also SOLICIT. They solicit money to support their particular venture which is wetlands education. They have an agenda, and they are promoting it through a cache listing.

 

The wetlands solicitation is open and ongoing. Any geocachers who load that cache in their unit will be faced with that solicitation. They may even show up in the area not realizing they need to shell out $10 each to find the caches and be slightly pissed that they went out of their way with no money in pocket. (But then relieved that there is a parking lot micro so it wasn't a total waste driving the extra distance to go there.)

 

When it comes down to it, the best explanation we have so far for inconsistent application of the rules/guidelines is "asked for permission first -- didn't ask for permission." That's the way it is, but there is still room to fill the glass up more.

 

I'm still interested in knowing if blood donation would be deemed "worthy" of an exception by TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post
Mtn-man, in your posts, you went on in great length about how commercial et al caches are not allowed, verboten, banned, not good, rules are rules.
Excuse me? I said what? Would you mind quoting where I have gone to great lengths to say that "rules are rules"? Since you can't (because I haven't), would you mind giving me an apology?

 

You say you like the flexibility they show with some things (space added back in by mtn-man). Why are you now calling them guidelines when all along you have been treating them as rules. Rules do not make exceptions as in my case, but now when a blatant infraction is brought to Groundspeaks attention, we are told that they do make exceptions.
Wrong again about what I said. For the third time...
Let me expand briefly. When logging a cache, it is OK to say, "A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner." It is not OK to say on every log, "Hey, I own a diner called mtn-man's diner in Atlanta. We make the best gumbo in the world and ship to you where ever you are. See my site at www.mtn-mangumbo.com for more information." If you have rules, you don't get to tell people about that great restaurant you found down the road. There is nothing wrong with that. The second example is a clear advertisement though. Those additions to logs are using the site to solicit business. While blood donation is not "business" so to speak, it is still a solicitation.

 

I've been very clear in this entire topic that they are guidelines. I've also told you how to report caches or logs that you have issues with. A forum topic is NOT the right way. You need to write contact@geocaching.com to report issues you have. I've also given you two suggestions in this topic. You obviously missed them.

 

You very clearly have an agenda. Please do as I suggested in one of my early posts. Go start your own geocaching/solicitations site. Please show us all how to do it. I'll even post a cache on your site regarding animal adoption and fair treatment. Bring it on. Show us how it is done.

 

We are here to have fun. Please allow us to have fun and play this game as it is meant to be on this site -- fun.

 

And danoshimano, if Canadian Blood Services wants to negotiate to do TBugs as the Diabetes folks did, it has been clearly shown that it might in fact happen. Perhaps you guys could focus your efforts in a positive direction and contact Canadian Blood Services to get the ball rolling. Consider this my third positive action step suggestion in this topic.

 

I am close to closing this topic because debating it here is somewhat pointless. You have an issue with Groundspeak management. In my opinion, it is time for you to take it back to them. We shall see how it goes, but if the topic continues to go in the manner it has gone today I will close it.

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, show me in the guidelines where it states that cachers can request permission to bend the guidelines. It doesn't.

Cache-tech quoted one already. This one is right at the top of the guidelines page.

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas.

Next, let's move down the guidelines page where it says:

Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types

 

(Right above the "Cache Maintenance" section it says...)

Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site.

Is three times enough?

 

 

Edited to add that I found a fourth one in the Event Caches section:

Events are generally published no more than three months prior to the date of the event, to avoid having the listing appear for a prolonged period of time on the nearest caches page and in the weekly e-mail notification of new caches. Exceptions are sometimes made for events that are designed to attract a regional, national or international group of geocachers, or if an overnight stay is expected as part of the event, requiring advance reservations and travel planning (for example, a campout). Contact your reviewer if you wish to set up such an event, which may be published up to six months prior to the event date.

 

And a fifth one in the Off-limit (Physical) Caches section:

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

(list deleted for brevity)

 

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post
Mtn-man, in your posts, you went on in great length about how commercial et al caches are not allowed, verboten, banned, not good, rules are rules.
Excuse me? I said what? Would you mind quoting where I have gone to great lengths to say that "rules are rules"? Since you can't (because I haven't), would you mind giving me an apology?

 

Mtn-man I do offer you an apology. I should not have attributed these statements to you. These are what I have interpreted from what I have heard from you and the other posters. I did not place these phrases in quotations, so they were not meant as quotes. I do stand behind how i interpret what I have read here.

 

As an employee of Groundspeak whether you are paid or unpaid, you have the power to terminate this thread. I started this thread so that an open discussion could be conducted. I did this after trying to negotiate with Groundspeak (see first post) via email and got no where. They were not willing to see my point of view at all. I accepted that they were not going to bend, so I figured that I would start an open discussion about the guidelines.

 

As to the "commercial" cache referred to by Danoshimano. Commercial by it's very nature is a for profit venture. I can not think of anyone or any company (Groundspeak included) that would enter into a commercial venture and not expect to recover a profit. It is not the American way. That is not an insult to Americans. So, this cache that has represented itself as a not for profit commercial venture is either mistaken or trying to get around the solicitation rule. It is a charitable group hiding behind a commercial front.

 

On the other hand the Canadian Blood Services is as their web page advertises:

 

Canadian Blood Services is a not-for-profit, charitable organization whose sole mission is to manage the blood and blood products supply for Canadians.

 

To this end, Canadian Blood Services:

 

* Collects approximately 850,000 units of blood annually and processes it into the components and products that are administered to thousands of patients each year.

 

 

* Manages the Unrelated Bone Marrow Donor Registry (UBMDR) whose mission is to secure, in an expeditious way, donors for Canadian bone marrow transplant patients and for patients abroad.

 

 

* Screens every donor and tests each unit of blood or blood product collected for a variety of transmissible diseases.

 

 

* Ensures that Canadian transfusion medicine research and development remains at the cutting edge.

 

Canadian Blood Services is committed to blood safety. In addition to the effective screening and testing processes, this pursuit of safety is reflected in every branch of its organizational structure and in each management and operational decision that is made.

 

So how is this different from the 'commercial" cache that was allowed? The only way this is different is that I did not ask for permission before hand. I was a oversight on my part. After reading the guidelines, I saw nothing about what could or could not be said in logs. This was about one year (500 finds) after I started using my tag line. I looked into the guidelines because I wanted to start a CBS cache. When I saw the guidelines, I emailed Groundspeak and "ASKED FOR PERMISSION" to create a cache for CBS. I was turned down flat and referred to the guidelines. I grudgingly accepted their ruling. At that time they did not say, "oh. by the way, we do not like your tag line". It took another year (600 finds) for that to happen and only after someone ratted me out. Fair enough. I am removing my logs. The tag line issue is closed. I do not have a problem with the TB rules. Closed subject.

 

This thread has progressed past that into commercial/solicitation caches and why they are or are not allowed. I do not see a difference between commercial and solicitous caches. They should be grouped as one. They all should have exceptions or none of them should. Allowing a commercial venture to establish a cache under not for profit reasons is ludicrous.

 

Non profit commercial venture = OXYMORON.

 

Like you I am a volunteer. I voluntarily donate plasma to the Canadian Blood Service. The extent of my volunteering is to let them stick a needle in my arm to maybe save someones life. I am not expecting Groundspeak to do a flip on my issue and let me have a CBS cache. I started this thread so that other cachers could voice their opinion in an open forum. If I had stopped with the email conversation rather than starting this thread, I would not know the opinion of others who agree with me and those who do not. That is the whole point of these forums.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

Great post. Many thanks. As far as standing behind how you have interpreted all posts in this topic... fair enough.

 

You can voice you opinion. You did a much better job in the last post.

Share this post


Link to post

Trying to not to be involved in the recent mud-slinging that I am hoping has calmed down but I would like to point out that the issue related to the 1100 logs that need to be edited was not a commercial issue. It was an agenda issue.

 

When it comes to the Listing Guidelines and all of the other documents on the Site, including but not limited to www.geocaching.com, operated by Groundspeak inc. it can be said that they are a framework for conduct both for the corporation of Groundspeak and also for those that use any of the publishing tools on the Site. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV but every document has been intentionally written to be adaptable based on current situations. I would be very surprised if everyone wanted to have Groundspeak operate the Site as a dictatorship with exacting rules that must be adhered to without exception.

 

Although Cache-Tech has already addressed the geocaches that were placed inside some park that requires an admission fee I'm not sure how to describe the difference between paying to enter Algonquin Provincial Park and entering Paramount Canada's Wonderland. But I would say that the former is a not-for-profit and the later is a for-profit, and that is the key difference from my reviewer perspective. But I agree that in Ontario Parks was to start placing caches in an effort to draw people into their parks and that would require geocachers to pay an admission fee, I would not publish those caches since they would be commercial in design. However, if Ontario Parks was to once allow geocaching and then regular geocachers started placing geocaches with permission inside Ontario Parks locations that require an entry fee then I would publish them.

 

FWIW, if I didn't allow Ontario Parks to place caches on their own property because I perceive them as commercial placements, they could request an exception from Groundspeak and if it was granted then I would publish them. I do not take kindly to accounts being created to attract people to their facilities in order to possibly gain some commercial benefit even if it is indirectly created.

Share this post


Link to post

Trying to not to be involved in the recent mud-slinging that I am hoping has calmed down but I would like to point out that the issue related to the 1100 logs that need to be edited was not a commercial issue. It was an agenda issue.

Firstly, I do not consider the voicing of opinions here as mudslinging. If that is your interpretation of the flow of this thread then, fair enough. I believe that I said that the logs issue was settled and the intent of this thread was about the inconsistency of the guidelines where commercial/solicitous caches were concerned.

 

As far as I am concerned there should not be a distinction between commercial and the rest. They all have agendas. Commercial caches have the worst agenda of them all. They are there to make money. That is a big agenda. To have exceptions for commercial caches and not the others is ridiculous. Either all of the special class caches should be exemptable or none of them should be. I can live with which ever way it goes. To single out one special class over the rest is inconsistent. Apply the guidelines evenly or do not apply them at all.

 

Although Cache-Tech has already addressed the geocaches that were placed inside some park that requires an admission fee I'm not sure how to describe the difference between paying to enter Algonquin Provincial Park and entering Paramount Canada's Wonderland. But I would say that the former is a not-for-profit and the later is a for-profit, and that is the key difference from my reviewer perspective. But I agree that in Ontario Parks was to start placing caches in an effort to draw people into their parks and that would require geocachers to pay an admission fee, I would not publish those caches since they would be commercial in design. However, if Ontario Parks was to once allow geocaching and then regular geocachers started placing geocaches with permission inside Ontario Parks locations that require an entry fee then I would publish them.

 

FWIW, if I didn't allow Ontario Parks to place caches on their own property because I perceive them as commercial placements, they could request an exception from Groundspeak and if it was granted then I would publish them. I do not take kindly to accounts being created to attract people to their facilities in order to possibly gain some commercial benefit even if it is indirectly created.

The cache that DanoShimano spoke about is not a commercial venture. All you need do is to read their web page. Cache-tech should have when he allowed this cache. I am only assuming that he was the reviewer. It is in his neck of the woods. Their web page clearly states that they are a:

 

"year-round, non-profit, charitable organization that does not receive ongoing government support, but is totally dependent upon income from memberships, donations and admissions. "

 

This organization is not commercial. It does not fall under the commercial cache guideline. They give out tax receipts for membership fees. Commercial ventures do not. It clearly is a charitable organization, just like the CBS is a charitable organization. I am not mentioning this cache by name because, other than charging to find the cache, I do not have a problem with it and see no reason to shut it down. But, if the guidelines are to be applied evenly is must be shutdown. Solicitation is Off Limits. (from the guidelines)

 

When this inconsistency was reported to Groundspeak as Mtn-man said cachers were responsible to do, the reporter was told that it was a commercial cache and that they had given an exemption to because it was non-profit and they asked for the exemption. The first reason should have told them it was not a commercial venture. If the Groundspeak reviewer had checked the web page of the owners, they would have seen two things. On their profile page they have not found any caches. To me that means that they are not cachers, because cachers find caches. The second is the statement quoted above that clearly states that they are a "Non profit, charitable organization".

 

And you ask why I have a problem with the inconsistencies employed to how the guidelines are approved?

 

Now, I am sorry, if you can not see that there is an inconsistency above, then you never will.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any inconsistencies here myself, as such I see it this way.

 

Logs: You were soliciting donations for a non-profit group through your logs, upon discovery, you were asked to remove your logs. If any non-profit park were to start to log caches asking to visit their park, I am sure they will be asked to remove it. I don't see where this would be inconsistent, since we don't read every log and with the number of logs posted, it would be a big job to police them, which is why things slip through until someone asks if something like your tag line is permitted. Just to note, this is off the front page.

 

In the last 7 days, there have been 304958 new logs written by 45145 account holders.

 

That is a lot of logs, since site volunteers are not log police, this is referred directly to Groundspeak, as in your case.

 

A different issue but brought up here. Caches placed by a park volunteer within the park they volunteer at with an account they do not use for regular caching (this does not imply they have a regular caching account, just that the account used for the cache placements is just for this park). The caches were submitted, referred, permission granted and were listed. This is in the guidelines which was followed for these caches.

 

You would like to post a cache to promote your agenda to solicit donations for the CBS citing the park caches, but denied, there is no inconsistency here, it is taken on a cache by cache basis. What is the difference between your solicitation and the park caches. You are soliciting cachers to donate for something not related to geocaching, be it blood, money, food, toys or a number of other charities. Geocaching defined by some is getting out, getting exercise, using a GPS and finding a hidden cache at a set of co-ordinates. While the park charges an admission fee, they are non-profit and you are geocaching, if Canada's Wonderland or LaRonde staff were to submit a cache, they would be denied as these are for profit sites. I am sure there are many examples of caches in such sites, but I am not looking for examples. If you do not want to pay to get into the park, then you do not have to find the caches there, but the core reason for the caches is to geocache. I am not sure how you would set up your CBS cache, but from the examples of past cache submissions I have refused, it was usually an ALR - donate blood, find the cache, sign log, log your find. While it can be said this is similar to the park caches - pay admission, find the cache, sign log, log your find, there is a difference, one is to get you to donate to a charity organization, finding the cache is really second, the other is to get people to go out and find a cache for the cache, visiting the park is second.

 

If caches were to no longer be listed within non-profit admission fee parks, that would cover many parks just within Canada. I would also prefer to know if there is an admission charged before going to find a cache having been caught in the past arriving at the gate. I left that day, but returned another and found the caches there. To think of it, there are several more now in that park, have to plan another trip, I don't like to pay an admission, but from our past visits, it is worth a visit to hike through the park. So with these caches, would it be different if it were a cacher that placed the caches or that it was a volunteer of the park that asked permission to list the caches?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any inconsistencies here myself, as such I see it this way.

 

Logs: You were soliciting donations for a non-profit group through your logs, upon discovery, you were asked to remove your logs. If any non-profit park were to start to log caches asking to visit their park, I am sure they will be asked to remove it. I don't see where this would be inconsistent, since we don't read every log and with the number of logs posted, it would be a big job to police them, which is why things slip through until someone asks if something like your tag line is permitted. Just to note, this is off the front page.

Again with the logs. That issue is settled and I accept it. OK?

 

As I said previously, I submitted an idea for a cache to cache agent (you know her, right?), it was very similar to this idea. It was a cache based on a charitable organization (CBS). She told me it would not fly. I contacted Groundspeak and they said the same thing.

 

What I am talking about now is why was the cache previously mentioned approved. Their web page "CLEARLY" states that they are a charitable organizations that accepts donations (solicitation).

 

From the guidelines.

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are 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.

 

Come on Cache-tech, you are the expert here. The cache owners web page CLEARLY states that it is a charitable organization that solicits for donation on it's web page. The guidelines CLEARLY states that solicitations are off limits and charitable organizations can not be the subject of caches. There are no exemptions for caches that solicit. PERIOD.

 

Please explain why exactly this charitable cache was approved. Remember the log issue is settled.

Edited by Plasma Boy

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any inconsistencies here myself, as such I see it this way.

 

Logs: You were soliciting donations for a non-profit group through your logs, upon discovery, you were asked to remove your logs. If any non-profit park were to start to log caches asking to visit their park, I am sure they will be asked to remove it. I don't see where this would be inconsistent, since we don't read every log and with the number of logs posted, it would be a big job to police them, which is why things slip through until someone asks if something like your tag line is permitted. Just to note, this is off the front page.

Again with the logs. That issue is settled and I accept it. OK.

 

What I am talking about now is why was the cache previously mentioned approved. Their web page "CLEARLY" states that they are a charitable organizations that accepts donations (solicitation).

 

From the guidelines.

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are 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.

 

Come on Cache-tech, you are the expert here. The cache owners web page CLEARLY states that it is a charitable organization that solicits for donation on it's web page. The guidelines CLEARLY states that solicitations are off limits and charitable organizations can not be the subject of caches. There are no exemptions for solitious caches. PERIOD.

 

Please explain why exactly this charitable cache was approved. Remember the log issue is settled.

 

Considering this thread is about logs and not caches, I was on topic.

 

Concerning the caches, and I don't consider myself "the expert", I try to follow the guidelines as closely as possible while being consistent, the guidelines have been revised over time, my reviewing has changed to reflect said revisions and experience. Caches within a non-profit admission park have been listed, the goal is to get people caching. It was stated that it was a solicitation due to mentioning the admission fee, I viewed this as being commercial for charging an admission fee and referred it.

 

As for the website and donation link, I will discuss it with Groundspeak, it is only on 1 listing and I missed it. The descriptions are mostly about the location, just like many other caches and asking not to leave the trails, along with a note about the admission fee and what it is. Many caches are placed in parks that charge an admission fee, I would rather know there is a charge before heading out then finding out when I got there. The cache placer has permission for the placements. If the solicitation aspect was due to being in a park that charged an admission, then many caches would have to be removed for that reason, or is it due to parks staff placing the cache and not a cacher who paid the admission and placed the cache? They would still need permission for the placement from the parks staff and once given, would that be any different then the current caches? Bottom line, caches were placed, permission was requested and granted, the caches were listing.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Considering this thread is about logs and not caches, I was on topic.

 

Concerning the caches, and I don't consider myself "the expert", I try to follow the guidelines as closely as possible while being consistent, the guidelines have been revised over time, my reviewing has changed to reflect said revisions and experience. Caches within a non-profit admission park have been listed, the goal is to get people caching. It was stated that it was a solicitation due to mentioning the admission fee, I viewed this as being commercial for charging an admission fee and referred it.

 

As for the website and donation link, I will discuss it with Groundspeak, it is only on 1 listing and I missed it. The descriptions are mostly about the location, just like many other caches and asking not to leave the trails, along with a note about the admission fee and what it is. Many caches are placed in parks that charge an admission fee, I would rather know there is a charge before heading out then finding out when I got there. The cache placer has permission for the placements. If the solicitation aspect was due to being in a park that charged an admission, then many caches would have to be removed for that reason, or is it due to parks staff placing the cache and not a cacher who paid the admission and placed the cache? They would still need permission for the placement from the parks staff and once given, would that be any different then the current caches? Bottom line, caches were placed, permission was requested and granted, the caches were listing.

 

The only reason that the topic contains the word "LOG", is that once I realized that the topic was incorrect and needed to be changed, I discovered that Groundspeak does NOT allow posters to change the name of the topic. This was mentioned in one of my previous posts. I said that after being told by a reviewer that cachers change the names of caches to sneak around the forbidden cache guidelines. I found it ironic that a cacher could change the name and focus of a cache, but could not alter the topic of a forum.

 

As for the cache in question, it WAS challenged and still allowed and justified. Everyone misses things. I am not blaming the reviewers. They do a thankless job. The cache in question was challenged as a reviewer suggested that it was our responsibility and the approval was defended by Groundspeak. That is the inconsistency not that it slipped past the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

At this point, I am going to respectfully ask you to email contact@geocaching.com if you have an issue with a cache. This topic was about your logs and you being forced to change them. If there are any more comments about that, then fine. You seem to be fine with it at this point, so this topic should now fall off the page.

 

If you have concerns about a specific cache, then please either start a new topic (which will not be productive) or email the contact address (which is the proper procedure).

Share this post


Link to post

At this point, I am going to respectfully ask you to email contact@geocaching.com if you have an issue with a cache. This topic was about your logs and you being forced to change them. If there are any more comments about that, then fine. You seem to be fine with it at this point, so this topic should now fall off the page.

 

If you have concerns about a specific cache, then please either start a new topic (which will not be productive) or email the contact address (which is the proper procedure).

 

I respectively disagree with your constantly referring to the topic of this thread as the real issue. Yes, the topic mentions logs, but the log issue is part of a much bigger issue. The real issue is the "Inconsistency In Applying Forbidden Cache Type Guidelines". I mentioned twice about not being able to change the topic title. I can not do that, but as a moderator you can. Could you please change the topic title to reflect the real topic of this thread?

 

Having said that, as you notice, I only reply to this thread when others make comments. I am willing to let this topic fall off the page. If there are no more posts that I feel need answering, I will not post to this topic again.

 

I will not close the topic and I ask that you do not either. There are not any reasons to warrant closure of this topic. I would appreciate it if you would change the topic title, so that the logs issue can be truly put to bed and the greater issue can be discussed if anyone wants to. Failing that I could always start a new topic with the new title and put a link to the old.

 

I will not report the cache mentioned in this thread to Groundspeak. I have absolutely no problem with this kind of cache. The only reason it was mentioned was to point out the inconsistencies in applying the guidelines. I apologize if this thread causes that cache owner or any other cache owner grief. My problem is the way the guidelines are applied. That is the issue of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The log issue has been addressed and the cache issue has been answered. If you feel the cache issue is not resolved, report the caches to Groundspeak, include my reviewer name in your email as I was the reviewer for both caches. I am going to close this topic as the Log Issue has been resolved, unless a mistake was made with a topic title, titles are not changed, this started off as a log issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×