Jump to content

Commercial Cache Guidelines....


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

GC1AF32

 

There has been a lot of local discussion about whether or not this cache should be archived, along with some heated debate on the cache page (most since deleted). Hate to throw my 2 cents (or sense, as the case may be) into the fray, but I gotta say I can't see how this doesn't go against the guideline restricting "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."

 

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

Link to comment

These statements on the cache page would seem to indicate that it is a violation. But if TPTB approved it, then that's their decision.

 

A puzzle cache that requires you to put in the time and effort to dine at Phoenix's most celebrated eatery.

...

The coordinates for this cache are only available by dining at Pizzeria Bianco, ...

...

The coordinates can be found by answering the following questions, which you can only do by being seated at a table at the restaurant ...

 

I wonder if the cache owner edited the page after it was published.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

Jah. I mean.. Seriously.

 

That's no different than a geocache in Disney Land (sure there are grandfathered virts there, but that's another matter)

 

I can understand, and don't personally have a problem with a cache that takes you in to someplace that there's the option to spend money, but you don't HAVE to. (which technically, is still against those guidelines.)

 

But, I seriously don't think the reviewer bothered to actually pay attention as to the nature of that cache.

Link to comment
along with some heated debate on the cache page

 

Using the cache page as a discussion forum is also against the rules. So those who want to hider the follow the rules break the rules by making a comment about a cache they didn't find? HHHMMMMM...

 

 

Although, it does beg the question WHY this one is allowed. Hey, Groundspeak can approve anythig they want....just knowing why might help us understand the rules.

Link to comment

Looks like a fun cache and you get a chance to eat great pizza. So what's the big deal? If you don't agree with the approval then don't go after the cache. Sounds to me you want a commercial cache of your own to pitch something.

 

The opinion was that it clearly violates the guidelines...not whether it was a cool cache.

 

It sure seems to me that this one violates the commercial guidelines like crazy (yet, Canadians couldn't post a link to a restaurant menu on an event page, curious).

 

All of that said...if TPTB made an exception, as it sounds like they did, the cache is valid.

 

It does, however, highlight another instance of wildly different allowances on some of the guidelines.

Edited by KoosKoos
Link to comment

Looks like a fun cache and you get a chance to eat great pizza. So what's the big deal? If you don't agree with the approval then don't go after the cache. Sounds to me you want a commercial cache of your own to pitch something.

 

The opinion was that it clearly violates the guidelines...not whether it was a cool cache.

 

It sure seems to me that this one violates the commercial guidelines like crazy (yet, Canadians couldn't post a link to a restaurant menu on an event page, curious).

 

All of that said...if TPTB made an exception, as it sounds like they did, the cache is valid.

 

It does, however, highlight another instance of wildly different allowances on some of the guidelines.

I agree. I won't be searching for either cache, but this one being approved (requiring a purchase) and the one that had a link to a menu not being approved is ridiculous.

Link to comment

I got a note from our patient reviewer just the other day (which unfortunately has already been emptied from my e-trash bucket) on a placement near a restaurant. I had said that the restaurant was our favorite and hidden a clue in this sentence, as I recall: "...to give you the Low Down on the best places to eat in the area." The finders were not required to go inside, yet our meticulous reviewer found a "commercial endorsement" rule that forced me to re-word it before it would be approved. I cut it down to "This is our favorite place" with no mention of it being a restaurant. My S.O. suggested I re-submit it with "this is the worst restaurant in town, the food sucks". Personally, when I'm on a cache run and getting a little hungry, I'll steer toward the OYR/Chili/IHOP/RedMonday strip. Is is just me, or do other cachers like to know where the restaurants are while on an out of town caching trip???

Link to comment

This cache clearly violates the rules. There can be no doubt about that. The only question is why TPTB allowed an exception on this one.

 

It is too bad there is not some way an explanation could be made of this decision. Having this cache allowed and not posting others that aren't even as bad will do nothing but harbor bad feelings.

 

Looks like a fun cache and you get a chance to eat great pizza. So what's the big deal? If you don't agree with the approval then don't go after the cache.

 

The big deal is this cache clearly violates the rules. If TPTB allow it then go find it. However, there is a big difference between discussing this and the usual posts about micros, or LPC, or any other cache that is within the guidelines.

 

The guidelines are there for EVERYONE to follow. When an exception is made it is a big deal, to anyone who tried to hide a similar cache and got shot down. To be fair we should discuss the exceptions. After all that's part of the reason to have a forum.

Link to comment

I got a note from our patient reviewer just the other day (which unfortunately has already been emptied from my e-trash bucket) on a placement near a restaurant. I had said that the restaurant was our favorite and hidden a clue in this sentence, as I recall: "...to give you the Low Down on the best places to eat in the area." The finders were not required to go inside, yet our meticulous reviewer found a "commercial endorsement" rule that forced me to re-word it before it would be approved. I cut it down to "This is our favorite place" with no mention of it being a restaurant. My S.O. suggested I re-submit it with "this is the worst restaurant in town, the food sucks". Personally, when I'm on a cache run and getting a little hungry, I'll steer toward the OYR/Chili/IHOP/RedMonday strip. Is is just me, or do other cachers like to know where the restaurants are while on an out of town caching trip???

Just two days ago I went looking for a cache called "currie camo" hoping I was going to find some spicey food :) Alas, it was just the name of a street. I like caches that are near great places to eat. There's one in CT that is really just another parking lot micro, EXCEPT that it's near one of two places voted best pizza in the world (or something.) Back OT, the difference is that for those caches you aren't REQUIRED to go inside and spend money.

Link to comment

Curious ...... this game has no Rules (that I have ever heard of). I'm quite a newbie and every second thread I read here basically ends with "everyone plays the game their own way" whatever the topic of discussion.

 

So TPTB are playing the game their own way I guess - within their own guidelines, that they themselves set and are free to make exceptions to, ignore, change, ammend, throw out with the trash etc as and when they want. Due to the fact that they ARE TPTB.

 

There really is no discussion to be had that I can see.

 

Annie

Link to comment

I think that one clearly violates the commercial cache ban: maybe it's even a *textbook* example of a commercial cache!

 

Heck, I had a cache (Over Under) get denied because a photo I used (with permission) originally had the website where I got it from on the photo itself (per their requirement).

 

I had to edit it to thank the guy by name only.

Link to comment

Curious ...... this game has no Rules (that I have ever heard of). I'm quite a newbie and every second thread I read here basically ends with "everyone plays the game their own way" whatever the topic of discussion.

 

So TPTB are playing the game their own way I guess - within their own guidelines, that they themselves set and are free to make exceptions to, ignore, change, ammend, throw out with the trash etc as and when they want. Due to the fact that they ARE TPTB.

 

There really is no discussion to be had that I can see.

 

Annie

I just would have like to have seen actual evidence that TPTB approved the cache in its present form and some sort of acknowledgment that an exception was granted.

 

There are plenty of caches that get published only to either retracted or archive when the reality of the situation is revealed. We had one in our area only yesterday that was published on Wednesday and archived on Thursday because it was discovered that it was behind a locked gate and armed guards.

Link to comment

As far as I'm concerned this is definitely a commercial cache according to the definition in the guidelines. I know that Groundspeak can make exceptions if they want, but fair is fair, and if this one was actually approved, then IMHO, it is simply wrong! There should be at least an attempt at consistency! This smacks of favoritism at it's worst! Again, it is possible that the wording was changed after being approved, or the reviewer simply had a brain fart, or something, but if it is allowed as is, then I for one will have lost a lot of respect for TPTB!

Link to comment
... That's no different than a geocache in Disney Land (sure there are grandfathered virts there, but that's another matter). ...
The guidelines allow for exceptions to be made. In fact, Jeremy has stated that traditional caches on Disney property would be listed if permission was obtained.
Link to comment

I have to agree that if TPTB allowed it it's okay. After all, they get to make the call, but it does seem that there are very wide variations in the interpretation and enforcement of the commercial cache guidelines.

<sarcasm>

I think "we, the people," the official forum posters of GC, should just take it upon ourselves to archive the listing and banish the cache owner from ever eating pizza again.

 

<Hillary voice>

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

</Hillary>

</sarcasm>

Link to comment

It is interesting, and maybe just a function of timing (not enough for them to respond yet), that TPTB haven't responded to this.

 

No, they don't have to explain themselves. They can do whatever they want, including apparently breaking their own rules (ah-hem, sorry - guidelines...). This seems to be the only rule around here - they do what they want, when they want, because it's their website.

 

But this does apparently violate the guidelines in a pretty clear manner.

 

It would be nice to have some kind of explanation from the specific reviewer, or Jeremy (or a lackey), of why this specific, particular cache obviously got an exception that many other caches could only dream of.

Edited by FireRef
Link to comment
Groundspeak can make exceptions if they want, but fair is fair, and if this one was actually approved, then IMHO, it is simply wrong!

 

How is it wrong if they state in their guideline that they can make exceptions?

 

Although, as with everyone else, I would like to know WHY it is an exception.

 

They can do whatever they want, including apparently breaking their own rules (ah-hem, sorry - guidelines...)

 

Since their guideline mentions that can make exceptions, they're not really breaking their own rules.

 

But, without any word from....well....ANYONE....we're only left to speculate. Since RoadRunner is also my reviewer, it would be nice to know.....the rest of the....well, you know.

Link to comment

GC1AF32

 

There has been a lot of local discussion about whether or not this cache should be archived, along with some heated debate on the cache page (most since deleted). Hate to throw my 2 cents (or sense, as the case may be) into the fray, but I gotta say I can't see how this doesn't go against the guideline restricting "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."

 

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

It sure does sound like an advert/endorsement for the piazzaria and therefore a violation. Just my opinion.

Link to comment

On a recent vaction my geocaching partner and I discovered a few caches placed in front of restaurants in two different cities. As it was the dinner hour when we found the first one, we opted to eat there and the food was amazing, so on our second restaurant find a few days and a different city later we decided to defer to a fellow cachers taste and try a meal there. The food was equally good. We have decided that when we are out of town we may follow this policy and hope that other fellow cachers will place there caches at places they also like to eat.

Edited by jonahbug
Link to comment

On a recent vaction my geocaching partner and I discovered a few caches placed in front of restaurants in two different cities. As it was the dinner hour when we found the first one, we opted to eat there and the food was amazing, so on our second restaurant find a few days and a different city later we decided to defer to a fellow cachers taste and try a meal there. The food was equally good. We have decided that when we are out of town we may follow this policy and hope that other fellow cachers will place there caches at places they also like to eat.

 

You didn't need to enter the restaurant to complete the cache. The cache in question requires you to go into a commercial establishment and make a purchase.

 

From the cache page in question.

A puzzle cache that requires you to put in the time and effort to dine at Phoenix's most celebrated eatery.

 

How this cache is ok is beyond me. It is in clear violation of the guidelines. We all seem to agree on that point. I know that TPTB can make exceptions. I would like to hear why this exception was made, or at the least confirm that it was made.

 

The other possibility that I thought of was that this is a variation on a "liars cache". One of those caches that the finder is supposed to, lets say, enhance the facts. Could it be that if you went to the location you would find something other than what the cache page suggests?

Link to comment

Ok, I'm trying myself to figure all of this out, how can it not be "commercial" if you have to pay an admission to a location to get the coordinates for the cache? I'm not complaining about the admission, I personally would take my kids (for instance) to the museum for a bonus of the cache to keep their minds growing, but who makes the exceptions and why are they made and does a "museum or tourist attraction" apply?

Link to comment

Ok, I'm trying myself to figure all of this out, how can it not be "commercial" if you have to pay an admission to a location to get the coordinates for the cache? I'm not complaining about the admission, I personally would take my kids (for instance) to the museum for a bonus of the cache to keep their minds growing, but who makes the exceptions and why are they made and does a "museum or tourist attraction" apply?

Groundspeak makes the exceptions. When hiding a cache with a commercial aspect, the owner needs to write to Groundspeak for advance clearance. Volunteer cache reviewers are not empowered to grant exceptions, only Groundspeak.

 

For a "museum or tourist attraction," part of the answer depends on whether it's a profit or non-profit location. For example, caches hidden in a state park that has an entrance fee are not considered as "commercial" under this section of the listing guidelines. A cache hidden in a for-profit amusement park with an entrance fee would be.

Link to comment

Ok, I'm trying myself to figure all of this out, how can it not be "commercial" if you have to pay an admission to a location to get the coordinates for the cache? I'm not complaining about the admission, I personally would take my kids (for instance) to the museum for a bonus of the cache to keep their minds growing, but who makes the exceptions and why are they made and does a "museum or tourist attraction" apply?

Groundspeak makes the exceptions. When hiding a cache with a commercial aspect, the owner needs to write to Groundspeak for advance clearance. Volunteer cache reviewers are not empowered to grant exceptions, only Groundspeak.

 

For a "museum or tourist attraction," part of the answer depends on whether it's a profit or non-profit location. For example, caches hidden in a state park that has an entrance fee are not considered as "commercial" under this section of the listing guidelines. A cache hidden in a for-profit amusement park with an entrance fee would be.

Those make sense, but the cache in the OP requires you to go into a commercial business and make a purchase to be able to find the cache. Historically that's something that's been quite a no-no in the past.

Link to comment

GC1AF32

 

There has been a lot of local discussion about whether or not this cache should be archived, along with some heated debate on the cache page (most since deleted). Hate to throw my 2 cents (or sense, as the case may be) into the fray, but I gotta say I can't see how this doesn't go against the guideline restricting "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."

 

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

Much as several other posters have noted, this exception to the guidelines which was granted by the reviewer and the admins does not bother me at all, and I have a very hard time understanding WHY the OP is getting so bent out of shape about it. The reality is that the guidelines are guidelines, and that exceptions are sometimes made for MANY of the guidelines, and these exceptions do not necessarily set a precedent. What is so hard to understand about that? I do not have a problem at all with this, and in fact, I am happy that an exception was made for this pizzeria. This pizzeria is a bit of a landmark in the Tempe/Scottsdale/Phoenix area, and when I was in Tempe last year, a local friend took me to the pizzeria, where I had some slices of great pizza.

 

In closing, one statement by the OP that REALLY amazed me was the following:

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

Y'know, my only response to this kind of elliptical and convoluted logic is "huh?" You are really trying to tell me that the admins of Groundspeak, even though the guidelines clearly state that exceptions will sometimes be made to certain guidelines, are NOT allowed to grant an exception to a guideline unless they are willing to permanently change or eliminate that guideline? Since when did all of the Groundspeak staffers and admins become paid employees of the OP, wherein he/she can dictate terms to them? Hello?

 

Bottom line is that I suspect strongly that the OP has some kind of undisclosed agenda, that there is another half to the story -- one which is deliberately not being told by the OP -- which would explain why he/she is getting so bent out of shape over something that is merely fun.

Link to comment

GC1AF32

 

There has been a lot of local discussion about whether or not this cache should be archived, along with some heated debate on the cache page (most since deleted). Hate to throw my 2 cents (or sense, as the case may be) into the fray, but I gotta say I can't see how this doesn't go against the guideline restricting "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."

 

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

Much as several other posters have noted, this exception to the guidelines which was granted by the reviewer and the admins does not bother me at all, and I have a very hard time understanding WHY the OP is getting so bent out of shape about it. The reality is that the guidelines are guidelines, and that exceptions are sometimes made for MANY of the guidelines, and these exceptions do not necessarily set a precedent. What is so hard to understand about that? I do not have a problem at all with this, and in fact, I am happy that an exception was made for this pizzeria. This pizzeria is a bit of a landmark in the Tempe/Scottsdale/Phoenix area, and when I was in Tempe last year, a local friend took me to the pizzeria, where I had some slices of great pizza.

 

In closing, one statement by the OP that REALLY amazed me was the following:

I know the reviewer approved it, apparently after lengthy discussions with TPTB, but if this type of cache is to be approved, then geocaching.com really should change or significantly reword their guidelines, as this clearly violates the currently listed ones. Was this approved because the owners of the restaurant weren't the cache placers? The added caveat of "Some exceptions can be made" seems like they are saying these caches are not allowed, unless we allow them.

Y'know, my only response to this kind of elliptical and convoluted logic is "huh?" You are really trying to tell me that the admins of Groundspeak, even though the guidelines clearly state that exceptions will sometimes be made to certain guidelines, are NOT allowed to grant an exception to a guideline unless they are willing to permanently change or eliminate that guideline? Since when did all of the Groundspeak staffers and admins become paid employees of the OP, wherein he/she can dictate terms to them? Hello?

 

Bottom line is that I suspect strongly that the OP has some kind of undisclosed agenda, that there is another half to the story -- one which is deliberately not being told by the OP -- which would explain why he/she is getting so bent out of shape over something that is merely fun.

 

Yeah...what he said. :unsure:

Link to comment

Bottom line is that I suspect strongly that the OP has some kind of undisclosed agenda, that there is another half to the story -- one which is deliberately not being told by the OP -- which would explain why he/she is getting so bent out of shape over something that is merely fun.

 

There very well could be more to the story. I haven't had a cache denied for commercial aspects, but I've seen several local ones that were shot down and seen examples in the forums (see Canadian menus).

 

Of course TPTB can grant the exceptions. It would be nice if some explanation was given as to why THIS cache is ok with such a big exception, but another simple one is absolutely forbidden. Do they HAVE to disclose why they granted it? certainly not...but it's rather frustrating to see a glaring example of something way outside the norm approved and what seems rather simple gets shut down without reason.

 

Again, everything with this exception is allowed by the guidelines and I'm not about to ask for a hard RULE about things. Flexibility is a good thing. Groundspeak can ok a commercial cache because the logo has pretty colors if they want....they just can't be surprised when hiders feel it's pretty unfair.

Link to comment

Thank you for clarification, I'm trying to help a town that I grew up in add some caches, it's an AMAZING town with ALOT of Civil War links, that has no caches. I'm not questioning the forum or Goecaching, I'm just trying to help this southern USA town without mis-guiding them. Thank's to each of you, I want to give this dieing community a jump start, so to speak without crossing guidelines!!!

Link to comment

Bottom line is that I suspect strongly that the OP has some kind of undisclosed agenda, that there is another half to the story -- one which is deliberately not being told by the OP -- which would explain why he/she is getting so bent out of shape over something that is merely fun.

 

There very well could be more to the story. I haven't had a cache denied for commercial aspects, but I've seen several local ones that were shot down and seen examples in the forums (see Canadian menus).

 

Of course TPTB can grant the exceptions. It would be nice if some explanation was given as to why THIS cache is ok with such a big exception, but another simple one is absolutely forbidden. Do they HAVE to disclose why they granted it? certainly not...but it's rather frustrating to see a glaring example of something way outside the norm approved and what seems rather simple gets shut down without reason.

 

Again, everything with this exception is allowed by the guidelines and I'm not about to ask for a hard RULE about things. Flexibility is a good thing. Groundspeak can ok a commercial cache because the logo has pretty colors if they want....they just can't be surprised when hiders feel it's pretty unfair.

One thing I've noticed is usually when Groundspeak does grant an exception to the guidelines it says that right in the cache description. This cache doesn't have that which makes me (and others) think maybe the cache was changed after it was published.

Link to comment

Wow! While TPTB are under no obligation to explain why an exception was made even you, Vinny, must admit that the subject is interesting. It raises a lot of questions for those wanting to petition for exceptions of their own. If you aren't the least bit curious I'd be truly amazed. It's human nature to want a mystery solved.

Link to comment

 

There very well could be more to the story. I haven't had a cache denied for commercial aspects, but I've seen several local ones that were shot down and seen examples in the forums (see Canadian menus).

 

Of course TPTB can grant the exceptions. It would be nice if some explanation was given as to why THIS cache is ok with such a big exception, but another simple one is absolutely forbidden. Do they HAVE to disclose why they granted it? certainly not...but it's rather frustrating to see a glaring example of something way outside the norm approved and what seems rather simple gets shut down without reason.

 

Again, everything with this exception is allowed by the guidelines and I'm not about to ask for a hard RULE about things. Flexibility is a good thing. Groundspeak can ok a commercial cache because the logo has pretty colors if they want....they just can't be surprised when hiders feel it's pretty unfair.

 

My feeling as well. I followed the "Canadian" thread you are referring to where all the cache owner wanted to do was list a menu ... no prices or anything, to show folks that were going to attend the event, what kind of food was being offered. I myself had to alter a listing for a cache I have at a Canadian Historical Site, where I only wanted to list the hours of operation of the small museum on who's grounds the cache is hidden (permission granted from the museum, of course). Listing the hours of operation was too "commercial" :laughing:

It just bothers me that this cache which, (no matter how fancy, is just a Pizza Joint) is so blatantly commercial and was granted for a cacher that has had all of 26 finds, with this being their second hide.

Sure, Groundspeak has the power to make some exceptions, but from what I have seen, the "exceptions" have been for people to hold events in restaurants and still be able to list the event, and such as that. Not for blatant commercialism.

Something smells here, and it's not the anchovies! :laughing:

 

That being said, it would appear that there won't be any answer forthcoming, so we might just as well get on with our caching.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

Wow! While TPTB are under no obligation to explain why an exception was made even you, Vinny, must admit that the subject is interesting. It raises a lot of questions for those wanting to petition for exceptions of their own. If you aren't the least bit curious I'd be truly amazed. It's human nature to want a mystery solved.

Well, in this case, I am just happy that they made the exception-- the pizzeria in question is a great local landmark joint, and to me, such exceptions are simply fun, and not something to get all tense about. And, in my case, I have asked for exceptions on some of my caches about six times from about five different reviewers over the years (and across several states), and in each case, I asked politely, providing lots of supporting documentation, and in each case the exception was granted; in one case where Keystone was the reviewer, he even went so far as to note in a permanent note on the cache listing page that he had granted an unusual exception to the guidelines and that he would be monitoring compliance with the conditions of the exception carefully.

 

Bottom line is that I guess that I like good guidelines, and I also like flexibility in enforcing them! I never worry too much about consistency or about what sets a precedent and what does not. I remember back when I was in grad school in the early nineties, the professor who was my thesis committee chairman was a Polish immigrant who had endured amazing hardships to move to the USA and to earn his PhD; he useta love to say to people "Don't try to be consistent! The only consistent person is a dead person! Instead, learn to be flexible and have fun!" I think that a smidgen of that advice might apply here....!

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
On a recent vaction my geocaching partner and I discovered a few caches placed in front of restaurants in two different cities. As it was the dinner hour when we found the first one, we opted to eat there and the food was amazing, so on our second restaurant find a few days and a different city later we decided to defer to a fellow cachers taste and try a meal there. The food was equally good. We have decided that when we are out of town we may follow this policy and hope that other fellow cachers will place there caches at places they also like to eat.

 

I hope you like the food at Cracker Barrel

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

Bottom line is that I guess that I like good guidelines, and I also like flexibility in enforcing them! I never worry too much about consistency or about what sets a precedent and what does not. I remember back when I was in grad school in the early nineties, the professor who was my thesis committee chairman was a Polish immigrant who had endured amazing hardships to move to the USA and to earn his PhD; he useta love to say to people "Don't try to be consistent! The only consistent person is a dead person! Instead, learn to be flexible and have fun!" I think that a smidgen of that advice might apply here....!

 

I wish more people would develop that as their life philosophy.

Link to comment

Wow! While TPTB are under no obligation to explain why an exception was made even you, Vinny, must admit that the subject is interesting. It raises a lot of questions for those wanting to petition for exceptions of their own. If you aren't the least bit curious I'd be truly amazed. It's human nature to want a mystery solved.

Well, in this case, I am just happy that they made the exception-- the pizzeria in question is a great local landmark joint, and to me, such exceptions are simply fun, and not something to get all tense about. And, in my case, I have asked for exceptions on some of my caches about six times from about five different reviewers over the years (and across several states), and in each case, I asked politely, providing lots of supporting documentation, and in each case the exception was granted; in one case where Keystone was the reviewer, he even went so far as to note in a permanent note on the cache listing page that he had granted an unusual exception to the guidelines and that he would be monitoring compliance with the conditions of the exception carefully.

 

Bottom line is that I guess that I like good guidelines, and I also like flexibility in enforcing them! I never worry too much about consistency or about what sets a precedent and what does not. I remember back when I was in grad school in the early nineties, the professor who was my thesis committee chairman was a Polish immigrant who had endured amazing hardships to move to the USA and to earn his PhD; he useta love to say to people "Don't try to be consistent! The only consistent person is a dead person! Instead, learn to be flexible and have fun!" I think that a smidgen of that advice might apply here....!

 

I didn't mean to say that the exception should not have been granted. I certainly didn't mean to come off as "tense" about it. I only said I'd like to know why. I may never find out but at least I can say I asked. I guess I'm just a curious kinda guy.

Link to comment
I guess I'm just a curious kinda guy.

Yeah, me too. I know of an amazing, locally owned/operated pizza joint near my house that would be happy to have cachers as customers. Groundspeak has a pretty stable fallback position, in that they can proclaim words to the effect of, "No cache is a precedent. Just 'cus we granted our buddy permission to help financially support his favorite eatery, doesn't mean we'll grant you permission to do the same." I understand that position, and respect it, which is one of the reasons I'm unwilling to get fired up about caches like this one. But, curiosity is one of my strongest traits, and I'd still like to know why this particular, blatantly commercial cache was given a nod.

 

I'm kinda surprised MooseMob hasn't profered an opinion.

 

(Edit to add: Sorry about the spelling!)

Link to comment
I guess I'm just a curious kinda guy.

Yeah, me too. I know of an amazing, locally owned/operated pizza joint near my house that would be happy to have cachers as customers. Groundspeak has a pretty stable fallback position, in that they can proclaim words to the effect of, "No cache is a precedent. Just 'cus we granted our buddy permission to help financially support his favorite eatery, doesn't mean we'll grant you permission to do the same." I understand that position, and respect it, which is one of the reasons I'm unwilling to get fired up about caches like this one. But, curiosity is one of my strongest traits, and I'd still like to know why this particular, blatantly commercial cache was given a nod.

 

I'm kinda surprised MooseMob hasn't profered an opinion.

 

(Edit to add: Sorry about the spelling!)

MooseMob can't answer because he's eating at his favorite pizza place right now... :laughing: <just kidding! :laughing: > Anyhow, it sounds like this place is good enough where a geocache isn't really going to cause a big spike in their business. I guessing that this place is already a waymark. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

To summarize the facts, without any speculation on the motives of any players, the following appear to be 100% correct without argument:

 

1. Yes, the cache does appear to violate the guidelines. It's virtually impossible to argue otherwise.

2. The guidelines allow for exceptions from TPTB.

3. The owner states that an exception was made, both from the reviewer and his/her superiors.

 

Pretty much anything else, from the OP's motivation to whether this was made as an exception or an oversight appear to be unconfirmable at this point.

 

I'm not sure in any way shape or form whether it is normally the policy of TPTB to announce their reasoning for an exception that gets this much attention or not, but the following statement is interesting:

 

Wow! While TPTB are under no obligation to explain why an exception was made even you, Vinny, must admit that the subject is interesting. It raises a lot of questions for those wanting to petition for exceptions of their own. If you aren't the least bit curious I'd be truly amazed. It's human nature to want a mystery solved.

 

Interestingly enough, this is the best reason to not offer up the reasoning. If those wanting to petition for exceptions of their own had this reasoning to work with, then, in theory everyone would be able to successfully lobby for an exception because they'd know the criteria to get around the guideline, thus rendering the guideline pointless.

 

Now, all of the above being said, the only thing I'm really itching to hear is TPTB describing the situation or declining to elaborate. Not because I have any stake in the outcome or that it will affect me either way, but like gof1, I'm interested in the solution to the mystery.

Edited by Ry and Ny
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

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