Commercial Cache Guidelines....

[+Silny Jako Bek]

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.

 

Whoa! My only "agenda" was to ask the opinion of others regarding the cache. There isn't anything else to the story, and I'm not bent out of shape. As for my supposed lack of logic, the guideline itself seems illogical to me - we have this guideline unless we decide not to use it - and I never said the guideline should be eliminated, just reworded. Of course, one could contend that it is merely a "guideline" and therefore subject to interpretation.

 

Personally, I am of the opinion that if it got approved, then it's okay. If I, or anyone, don't want to have to eat at that particular place in order to log the cache, then we don't have to do that cache. Frankly, I have no problem with having to go there and buy dinner in order to do what's necessary for the cache. One has to figure something out to solve a puzzle cache...some people don't like to do that so they don't do puzzle caches. No problem. I only wondered why this particular cache, which seemed to be completely against the guidelines, might have been approved and thought someone else might have an idea.

 

I am always amazed when, in these forums, people often assume that others have some deep, dark hidden motivations for their posts. We tend to read to much into posts....might not I wonder why someone would unjustly accuse me of having a "hidden agenda"? Maybe the poster has some "hidden agenda" that motivates their accusations? Who knows, but I was just trying to solicit the opinion(s) of other forum posters and I end up getting blasted.

[+Ry and Ny]

Yep...only been here 3 weeks and I'm already a bit put off with the tone of this online community, always assuming that a poster is trying to push some hidden agenda.

 

For me, I'm learning the ropes. I might piss a few people off, I might make some friends. I'll never be pushing an agenda obliquely and I'll do my best to assume others are not doing that either.

 

Now, an honest, agenda-free question: If a commercial site is already a waymark, does that automatically exempt it from the applicable guideline or does that just weigh heavily in its favor when an exemption is asked for?

[+TrailGators]

If a commercial site is already a waymark, does that automatically exempt it from the applicable guideline or does that just weigh heavily in its favor when an exemption is asked for?

I don't think it has anything to do with it. Although it is odd why waymarks can do it but geocaches cannot. Maybe they are giving some more latitude for caches these days...

[cowcreekgeeks]

To the OP...TEST THE SYSTEM! Go to your favorite restaurant and set up your own cache. Word it EXACTLY like this approved cache and see if it gets approved.

 

Or...submit a NA log for guideline violation. Perhaps it did just slip through the cracks.

 

BTW...If it didn't bother you, we would not be reading this post.

[+NeoAddict]

As most of my response has already been said in this thread, I'll make it brief.

 

Looks commercial, sounds commercial, and the Cache Owner seems to like Jerry Seinfeld and a hot blonde babe a little too much.

Edited March 31, 2008 by NeoAddict

[+PhxChem]

Yep...only been here 3 weeks and I'm already a bit put off with the tone of this online community, always assuming that a poster is trying to push some hidden agenda.

 

The tone in this online community is quite mild as online communities go.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

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.

Whoa! My only "agenda" was to ask the opinion of others regarding the cache. There isn't anything else to the story, and I'm not bent out of shape. As for my supposed lack of logic, the guideline itself seems illogical to me - we have this guideline unless we decide not to use it - and I never said the guideline should be eliminated, just reworded. Of course, one could contend that it is merely a "guideline" and therefore subject to interpretation.

 

Personally, I am of the opinion that if it got approved, then it's okay. If I, or anyone, don't want to have to eat at that particular place in order to log the cache, then we don't have to do that cache. Frankly, I have no problem with having to go there and buy dinner in order to do what's necessary for the cache. One has to figure something out to solve a puzzle cache...some people don't like to do that so they don't do puzzle caches. No problem. I only wondered why this particular cache, which seemed to be completely against the guidelines, might have been approved and thought someone else might have an idea.

 

I am always amazed when, in these forums, people often assume that others have some deep, dark hidden motivations for their posts. We tend to read to much into posts....might not I wonder why someone would unjustly accuse me of having a "hidden agenda"? Maybe the poster has some "hidden agenda" that motivates their accusations? Who knows, but I was just trying to solicit the opinion(s) of other forum posters and I end up getting blasted.

Well, two quick points here. As far as hidden agendas: The reality, based simply upon hard-core experience here in the forums, is that in about 90% of such situations where such a thread appears, it later turns out that there was another side to the story, and that the OP had an agenda. And, in this case, my radar went off: You live in Tucson, at least 1.5 hours away from the cache hide site in Phoenix, and no one is forcing you to drive an hour and a half each way to find this cache, and yet you have continued to hammer at the simple fact that an exception was made to a guideline to allow placement of a cache at a pizzeria that was already a local landmark anyway.

 

As far as your perception that you got "blasted", well, that is not my perception, but you are more than welcome to have your own opinion. In my experience, compared to the vast majority of forums and email list groups to be found on the web, this is one of the very mildest and mellowest I have ever seen. Try a Bible discussion forum, a scrapbooking forum or an LDS (Mormon) polygamist splinter sect forum, or even a ski forum (the news media have reported several convictions for death threats and physical harassment from one ski forum alone), if you want to see real

"blasting"! I hang out on other list groups and forums where expressions of insane (and unwarranted) hostility and death threats are a near-daily occurrence, and on one such list, a deranged and delusional American expat living in Japan even called me long-distance on the phone in early 2007 to issue a personal death threat simply because he disagreed with my opinion of the exact definition of a scientific term that I had shared on the list group in question; he later tried to disrupt a lecture which I was giving to an audience of 150 persons on a related topic. A psychopathic man from another list group to which I had belonged threatened me with death back in 2004 because, as a scientific consultant, I had issued an unfavorable review to a consulting client about one of his overpriced commercial water filter products (this particular man was eventually shot to death at midnight by a SWAT team in November 2007 in a motel parking lot in a small town in Colorado while being sought for questioning as the chief suspect in a recent double homicide, so he eventually got his own just deserts...! :laughing: )

Edited March 31, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[cowcreekgeeks]

I like this version better...

<snip>

A man from another list group to which I had belonged threatened me with death back in 2004 because, as a consultant, I had issued an unfavorable review a hit to a consulting client about one of his water filter products (this particular man was eventually shot to death at midnight by a SWAT team (some business associates) in November 2007 in a motel parking lot in a small town in Colorado while being sought for questioning in a double homicide post, so he eventually got his own just deserts...! )

 

All of a sudden I'm VERY nervous around Vinny...I hear he "gets things done."

[+SixDogTeam]

They never promised you a rose garden Life is hard, and then you die.

[+joranda]

Sounds like a cache I'd like to visit.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I like this version better...

<snip>

A man from another list group to which I had belonged threatened me with death back in 2004 because, as a consultant, I had issued an unfavorable review a hit to a consulting client about one of his water filter products (this particular man was eventually shot to death at midnight by a SWAT team (some business associates) in November 2007 in a motel parking lot in a small town in Colorado while being sought for questioning in a double homicide post, so he eventually got his own just deserts...! )

All of a sudden I'm VERY nervous around Vinny...I hear he "gets things done."

Folks, please ignore any posts from cowcreekgeeks; that is just one of my many sock puppet accounts, and it is not a real person at all, so no need to believe anything written by that account. Really. Move along now, nothing to see here...!

[+Silny Jako Bek]

As far as your perception that you got "blasted", well, that is not my perception, but you are more than welcome to have your own opinion. In my experience, compared to the vast majority of forums and email list groups to be found on the web, this is one of the very mildest and mellowest I have ever seen. Try a Bible discussion forum, a scrapbooking forum or an LDS (Mormon) polygamist splinter sect forum, or even a ski forum (the news media have reported several convictions for death threats and physical harassment from one ski forum alone), if you want to see real

"blasting"! I hang out on other list groups and forums where expressions of insane (and unwarranted) hostility and death threats are a near-daily occurrence, and on one such list, a deranged and delusional American expat living in Japan even called me long-distance on the phone in early 2007 to issue a personal death threat simply because he disagreed with my opinion of the exact definition of a scientific term that I had shared on the list group in question; he later tried to disrupt a lecture which I was giving to an audience of 150 persons on a related topic. A psychopathic man from another list group to which I had belonged threatened me with death back in 2004 because, as a scientific consultant, I had issued an unfavorable review to a consulting client about one of his overpriced commercial water filter products (this particular man was eventually shot to death at midnight by a SWAT team in November 2007 in a motel parking lot in a small town in Colorado while being sought for questioning as the chief suspect in a recent double homicide, so he eventually got his own just deserts...!

 

I, and my family, would like to thank all previous posters for not having me killed...

[+Ry and Ny]

The tone in this online community is quite mild as online communities go.

 

It's amusing how every online community I've ever been a part of has someone who feels the need to say that--except for the ones where people truly are sticking to the discussion instead of questioning the poster. For some reason, they never feel the need to clarify this in those places.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "tone", as it allows you to compare it to the unmoderated kerosene pools that are out there. Congrats on rising above that.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Ry and Ny

[+sbell111]

The tone in this online community is quite mild as online communities go.

It's amusing how every online community I've ever been a part of has someone who feels the need to say that--except for the ones where people truly are sticking to the discussion instead of questioning the poster. For some reason, they never feel the need to clarify this in those places.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "tone", as it allows you to compare it to the unmoderated kerosene pools that are out there. Congrats on rising above that.

Sometimes people say that because it's true.

[+Renegade Knight]

Yep...only been here 3 weeks and I'm already a bit put off with the tone of this online community, always assuming that a poster is trying to push some hidden agenda....

 

Everybody has an agenda. Even the sycophants. Some agendas float better than others in these waters.

 

Knocking the site, picking on the guidelines and the like tend to be attacked with reckless abandon with cheap tactics to discredit the posters. The reverse gets a bit more free license but there are those who don’t toe the company line.

[Mr.Yuck]

The tone in this online community is quite mild as online communities go.

It's amusing how every online community I've ever been a part of has someone who feels the need to say that--except for the ones where people truly are sticking to the discussion instead of questioning the poster. For some reason, they never feel the need to clarify this in those places.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "tone", as it allows you to compare it to the unmoderated kerosene pools that are out there. Congrats on rising above that.

Sometimes people say that because it's true.

 

I'll say it's true also. For Pete's sake, these forums are amongst the most highly moderated I've ever seen, and the software won't even let you type a "mild swear word" like the one that rhymes with bamn, let alone profanity. This is like the first day of kindergarten, compared to the ugliness of the internet.

[+Mopar]

Looks like us curious types got our answer.

This is an automated message from Geocaching

 

You are receiving this email because this listing is on your watch list. Visit the web site to change your

watchlist settings.

 

Location: Arizona, United States

MissJenn archived Pizzeria Bianco Puzzle Cache (Archived) (Unknown Cache) at 3/31/2008

 

Log Date: 3/31/2008

This cache is blatantly commercial and is not fit to be published at geocaching.com. Our guidelines address

this issue. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercial

And one minute later....

This is an automated message from Geocaching

 

You are receiving this email because this listing is on your watch list. Visit the web site to change your

watchlist settings.

 

Location: Arizona, United States

MissJenn retracted Pizzeria Bianco Puzzle Cache (Archived) (Unknown Cache) at 3/31/2008

 

Log Date: 3/31/2008

retracting

I'm guessing if it really had permission from Groundspeak like the cache owner claimed, they wouldn't have archived it. They certainly wouldn't have retracted it (meaning we cant even see the cache anymore).

[+Kealia]

Dang, I love pizza.

 

Ok, now there REALLY is nothing to see here.

Move along.

[+gof1]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

[+briansnat]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

 

I would guess that the page was changed post publication.

[+Mopar]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

I'm guessing deceit.

The cache owner had posted something basically yelling at everyone who was complaining the cache was commercial. He said the cache hadn't slipped through the cracks; that he and the reviewer had discussed the commercial aspect, and that the reviewer had discussed the cache with Groundspeak and Groundspeak gave the OK for the cache.

Like I said, if all that were in fact true, I don't think they would have archived it a day or 3 later with a not so nice note, and they certainly wouldnt have gone to the extreme of totally removing the listing so you can't even see the archived cache if you have the link.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

I'm guessing deceit.

The cache owner had posted something basically yelling at everyone who was complaining the cache was commercial. He said the cache hadn't slipped through the cracks; that he and the reviewer had discussed the commercial aspect, and that the reviewer had discussed the cache with Groundspeak and Groundspeak gave the OK for the cache.

Like I said, if all that were in fact true, I don't think they would have archived it a day or 3 later with a not so nice note, and they certainly wouldnt have gone to the extreme of totally removing the listing so you can't even see the archived cache if you have the link.

Yes, deceit is certainly a possibility, and many of us have seen some egregious examples of that in the past with some cache listings, or it may be that the reviewer and her/his higher-ups really did grant an exception, but then at some later time, someone even higher up in the chain of command may have decided that the listing was not worth the firestorm which had started. To me, from my point of view, the later retraction of the listing could well be in line with this scenario, as part of an attempt to quell the firestorm. Now, of course, in light of these latest developments, I am wondering if the cache owner did lie about the matter to the reviewer and to those who inquired later.... or rather, if my proposed scenario may have been the one which played out... I think, going forward, that we need a spy at Groundspeak headquarters, who, much like the "high-placed officials who did not want to be identified because no one is not officially allowed to discuss this matter with the press" in Washington DC who are constantly quoted by the press, will be able to give us the unofficial skinny, i.e., the real dope, on these matters.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+BCandMsKitty]

HEH ... and the cache owner has himself listed as a lawyer ......

 

My faith in Groundspeak has been restored

[+gof1]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

I'm guessing deceit.

The cache owner had posted something basically yelling at everyone who was complaining the cache was commercial. He said the cache hadn't slipped through the cracks; that he and the reviewer had discussed the commercial aspect, and that the reviewer had discussed the cache with Groundspeak and Groundspeak gave the OK for the cache.

Like I said, if all that were in fact true, I don't think they would have archived it a day or 3 later with a not so nice note, and they certainly wouldnt have gone to the extreme of totally removing the listing so you can't even see the archived cache if you have the link.

 

Wow! When I wrote that post I had just looked at the listing. Now it is gone.

 

I'd still be surprised if we ever hear the rest of the details. Although we may hear changes to the wording of the listing guidelines.

[Mr.Yuck]

It still leaves at least one question. How did it get past the review process to begin with? Was it an error on the part of the reviewer? They are humans. Or was deciet involved?

 

At any rate I think we have all the answers we can reasonably expect.

I'm guessing deceit.

The cache owner had posted something basically yelling at everyone who was complaining the cache was commercial. He said the cache hadn't slipped through the cracks; that he and the reviewer had discussed the commercial aspect, and that the reviewer had discussed the cache with Groundspeak and Groundspeak gave the OK for the cache.

 

Yup, that's what they said. For the most part that is, we'll never know exactly what they said anymore.

[+PhxChem]

It's amusing how every online community I've ever been a part of has someone who feels the need to say that--except for the ones where people truly are sticking to the discussion instead of questioning the poster.

 

I never said that we always stuck to topics (when do we ever?) or never question others' motives.

 

Many times, when you start to pull on that little loose thread, the sweater starts to unravel. We see a lot of unraveling on these boards....that's all.

 

But seriously, as I said before....compare this forum to other online forums. We're basically a group hug around here.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Yeah, my guess is that since the cache was retracted and not simply archived, that the cache page was edited after it was published.

[+TeamGumbo]

My faith in Groundspeak has been restored

 

Bingo!

[+NikkiPoooo]

If someone who wants to publish a possibly commercial cache has to request permission from TPTB themselves because the reviewers have no say then shouldn't everyone have known that the owner wasn't being truthful when he said that he'd discussed it with the reviewer and the reviewer got it approved? Or can the reviewers request that someone's possibly commercial cache be published?

[AZcachemeister]

Here in the Phoenix area of Arizona, we used to have a regularly scheduled event held around the end of October. For several years the host(s) spent their own money (and much time) to create a seasonal extravaganza that was quite enthralling. Eventually, after several years, donations were solicited to offset the extraordinary expenses, but few attendees stepped up to help out.

 

Last year, the sponsors decided to actually require a payment to attend the event, whereupon a great hue and cry went out upon the land claiming 'COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL! O GREAT POWERS THAT BE WE MUST PAY TO ATTEND THIS EVENT, AND THAT IS WRONG!'

 

And thus the event was de-listed.

 

I think you can see what I'm suggesting.

 

And it now appears that scenario has transpired.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Quote -

If someone who wants to publish a possibly commercial cache has to request permission from TPTB themselves because the reviewers have no say then shouldn't everyone have known that the owner wasn't being truthful when he said that he'd discussed it with the reviewer and the reviewer got it approved? Or can the reviewers request that someone's possibly commercial cache be published?

 

Many thought there was something wrong with this listing other than what met the eye. In the guidelines, it states " Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak."

So, yes ... some commersialism can be allowed, but obviously not to the extent as was in the cache in point. (pun intended)

Edited April 1, 2008 by BC & MsKitty

[+gof1]

Quote -

If someone who wants to publish a possibly commercial cache has to request permission from TPTB themselves because the reviewers have no say then shouldn't everyone have known that the owner wasn't being truthful when he said that he'd discussed it with the reviewer and the reviewer got it approved? Or can the reviewers request that someone's possibly commercial cache be published?

 

Many thought there was something wrong with this listing other than what met the eye. In the guidelines, it states " Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak."

So, yes ... some commersialism can be allowed, but obviously not to the extent as was in the cache in point. (pun intended)

 

All scenarios are speculation at this point. Seems to me that there is little to no chance that we will ever know more than we do.

[+benh57]

Last year, the sponsors decided to actually require a payment to attend the event, whereupon a great hue and cry went out upon the land claiming 'COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL! O GREAT POWERS THAT BE WE MUST PAY TO ATTEND THIS EVENT, AND THAT IS WRONG!'

 

And thus the event was de-listed.

 

I think you can see what I'm suggesting.

 

No, i can't... what are you suggesting?

 

The event was correctly, delisted for requiring a payment. Geocaches (events or otherwise) do not require payment to be logged or attended, that is one of the basics of this website.

 

If you want to ask for payment to recoup expenses, feel free, but you can't require it. You could even say 'i won't provide this unless i get $500" or something.

[Clan Riffster]

Last year, the sponsors decided to actually require a payment to attend the event

And thus the event was de-listed.

Sounds kinda cheezy to me. Were the hosts unwilling to budge from their posistion on charging folks an entry fee to their event? Seems like a rewrite of the event page could've saved that one. Delisting was probably the right thing to do. If you're not willing to spend a few bucks, (or in some cases, a whole bunch of bucks), don't host events.

[+sbell111]

Last year, the sponsors decided to actually require a payment to attend the event

And thus the event was de-listed.

Sounds kinda cheezy to me. Were the hosts unwilling to budge from their posistion on charging folks an entry fee to their event? Seems like a rewrite of the event page could've saved that one. Delisting was probably the right thing to do. If you're not willing to spend a few bucks, (or in some cases, a whole bunch of bucks), don't host events.

... or design them to not require that much cost (or any).

[+TucsonThompsen]

Actually I can verify a couple of things about this one, for those of you who, like Paul Harvey want the "rest of the story".

 

1) No. The cache page was not altered by the owner. It was as listed and not edited after publication. How do I know? Well. I got the notification and downloaded the .GPX file to my GSAK within 1 minute of publication.

 

2) Technically speaking this cache did not absolutely require one to go into the restaurant. Because the owner was so massively "clever" he put the puzzle coords in DD.ddddd format where you needed only to figure out the first three numbers. Because of the two mile restriction, it pretty much limited the first two answers to being the same as the listed coords. The third answer could be determined from looking though the establishment's window. I actually went up there and found the cache and posted my log (which was later deleted by the owner). I don't seem to have a copy of my log available, but I did note that it was possible to do this one if you were shrewd enough without having to go into the restaurant. The owner deleted my find saying I was encouraging others to "cheat" by telling them you didn't HAVE to go into Pizzeria Bianco.

 

But I believe in transparency in this matter. So here for public dissemination is the correspondence regarding the nature of the cache goes, between myself (TucsonThompsen) and Neil Singh (aka neilends).

(I really like the end emails wherein I'm criticised for simply being a Tucsonan).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Geocaching (noreply@geocaching.com)

Sent: Fri 3/28/08 7:35 AM

Reply-to: neilends

To: TucsonThompsen

Just posted on my log:

 

==The guidelines that you yourself quote state that if certain factors are present then, "the cache is presumed to be commercial."

 

"Presumed" means the burden is on me to prove that the cache is not commercial, and I can meet that burden because I'm not affilliated with the restaurant. Are you also going to insist that all Disney caches be archived? I'll monitor GC30B0 to make sure you are being consistent.

==

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: "TucsonThompsen"

Sent 3/28/2008 8:25:30 AM

To: Neil Singh

Subject: RE: [GEO] neilends contacting TucsonThompsen from Geocaching.com

 

Neil,

 

This is not a new policy that GC.com has about commercialization. It's been in place for over two years now. Some older caches were grandfathered in that were in commercial locales (i.e. Disneyland, Legoland, Sea World, etc..) but many others were archived.

 

There is precedent in Arizona for immediate archival of these caches of similar ilk. Please see cache GC1889N. Same principle and it was archived, so please do not feel I unfairly singled out your cache.

Also, please be aware that as a fairly new cacher, you may not be totally familiar with what is allowed and what is not. I encourage you to re-read the guidelines thoroughly before placing your next cache. Our admin approver is Roadrunner and he is out of Las Vegas. Consequently, he does not thoroughly review things in my opinion as well as he should, and so it often falls to us more local cachers such as AZcachemeister to make sure new things are above board and follow all the guidelines.

 

Again, I request that you archive this cache or eliminate the commercial element to it to make it fall within the guidelines.

 

--Jeffrey Thompsen--

TucsonThompsen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Fri 3/28/08 9:28 AM

To: TucsonThompsen

 

Jeff,

 

I exchanged multiple emails with RoadRunner about this cache. He looked at it carefully, asked me questions about the commercial aspect, and then had people above him at geocaching.com review it. Only then did he approve it. Your assumption that he did not thoroughly review this particular submission is an incorrect one.

 

I also conceived of this cache while sitting at Pizzeria Bianco with a fellow cacher who IS what you would consider an experienced cacher, and we discussed the idea for this cache together. I'm not going to apologize for loving the restaurant. The other complainant about this cache also claims he reached his conclusion upon reading only the first line of the description, which makes it obvious that all of this hub-bub stems from a suspicion that I'm trying to market the restaurant. Believe me, I'd take an ownership stake in the place if I could. But alas, I don't.

 

I note that you're calling me a "new cacher" because, I guess, of my number of finds. I guess you didn't check to see how long I actually have been a cacher in terms of chronology. My work schedule doesn't allow me to cache more frequently but I have geocached longer than many cachers who have more finds than me, and I've done it in 7 countries (that includes Fiji, where I couldn't find one unfortunately).

 

Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "TucsonThompsen"

Sent 3/28/2008 3:18:54 PM

To: "Neil Singh"

Cc: michael@Groundspeak.com

Subject: Pizzeria Bianco Puzzle Cache (GC1AF32) and its commercial nature.

 

Neil,

 

I am not criticising you for you patronage of the pizza establishment. In fact, it looks good enough that I may try eating there tomorrow night. Regardless, the fact is simply that you are, by dint of placing waypoints in the restaurant, forcing geocachers to be patrons at the restaurant. You simply are parsing the argument that because YOU don't specifically own the restaurant that you are not commercializing the cache and thus it is not a commercial cache. I find that argument wholly specious and incorrect. Nonetheless it does seem that this is placed with the intent of drawing people to the restaurant, through geocaching, which is a directly counter to the GC.com policies. If the owners of the establishment were to grant permission directly for the cache (or portions thereof) to be located on/in their premises (preferably outside the building whereby no one would be forced to be a restaurant patron) then that would suffice the rules. That is of course with the caveat that no one be forced to purchase or otherwise support the business. The intention of avoiding commercial caches is to specifically have no third-party business profit from Groundspeak and geocaching.com without a licensed agreement.

 

I have cc:d this e-mail to Michael LaPaglia, one of the Community Relations Specialists for Groundspeak.com in the hopes that he will look into more detail why this cache was specifically published in comparison to another explicitly commercial cache in Metro Phoenix (Table for Two...TDW (GC1889N)) which was published then retracted. I do not see one reason why this cache does not fall into the "commercial" category which is specifically forbidden.

 

Michael, could you please provide feedback as to why this cache is legal per the GC.com guidelines.

 

Kind Regards,

Jeffrey Thompsen

--TucsonThompsen--

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Fri 3/28/08 4:02 PM

To: jeffrey thompsen

Cc: michael@Groundspeak.com

 

I haven't had a chance to review the other cache you speak of. If it was as explicitly commercial as you suggest, perhaps the cache owner had some profit-related motivation behind putting it there. As the geocaching.com reviewer made clear from emails between us, I have no such motivation because I have nothing to do with the restaurant other than my eating there.

 

If a cache related to a really cool restaurant that one of its customers happens to like is "illegal", then every cache on earth related to any restaurant, art gallery, sports team, resort, theme park, museum and tourist attraction should also be illegal. The Phoenix Suns cache (requiring people to buy tickets to the game to retrieve it) and the Disney cache (requiring tickets to enter the theme park) should be banned, by your logic. I simply don't see the distinction you are trying to make, mainly because there isn't one.

 

I don't understand what the quibble is with my attempt to challenge people to put up with a 3-4 hour wait to eat at a famous restaurant that I think every food-lover on earth should try. The point is to have fun. Eating at Bianco is fun. This cache will be fun. If you don't think so, just don't attempt it. I think out of staters visiting our town will love it.

 

Neil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey Thompsen"

Sent 3/28/2008 4:43:46 PM

To: "Neil Singh"

Cc: michael@Groundspeak.com

Subject: RE: Pizzeria Bianco Puzzle Cache (GC1AF32) and its commercial nature.

 

Neil,

 

Please review the precedent cache that I referred to. There also was a cache published in Benson, AZ that required you to go into an ice cream store. It was called "Chocolate Sprinkles" but it was retracted soon after listing. I don't have that GC number handy for your consideration.

 

Your "challenge" as it were, while interesting, is hardly the intent of geocaching.com. One could take this precedent you are attempting to establish and take it to the next logical extreme, say me placing a cache in my safe deposit box at the bank with a time-lock on it allowing you access only between 1:00 PM and 1:01 PM. You have to figure out how to get it. See the conundrum here? Or say I put it in the ladies' restroom thereby eliminating and disenfranchising half of the population. At least in the case of the bathroom, you don't have to patronize anything and pay.

While you may have no ulterior motive other than introducing a fine restaurant to the masses, the unintended consequence is that you have made a cache that is not attainable per the current rules of the site. Admin overlooked this for their own reasons which those of us concerned are attempting to discern. If you wanted to show off this pizza place, why not just put a puzzle (or regular) out that requires you to get info without disturbing the patrons or otherwise interfering with the business? The conclusion I draw is that you wanted to force people to go into the restaurant to achieve the same effect. But this is indirect solicitation. No other word for it. And as you said, your intention is to make people eat at a restaurant that "every food-lover on earth should try." How is that not forced patronage?

 

You are correct. Every cache that is INSIDE a commercial that requires a fee for entering said establishment should be archived. The point is that no one should be "forced" to pay a third-party business any required fee for the privilege of geocaching. Since the new policies went into effect, no new commercial establishments have had caches associated (and here's the key) WITHIN the store that requires patronage. I refer you to a cache in Yuma called "The Indian" (GCFB93) for a case history in AZ from 2005 of a commercial cache that precipitated the policy change. The precedent of no more tolerance for commercial caches is long-established going back to 2005. As you are no doubt aware, the cache inside USAirways Arena pre-dates that time frame and thus was grandfathered into the system. Our AZ reviewer Roadrunner, often makes the mistake of publishing things that later on had to be retracted. And this why I referred this case to the higher-ups above Roadrunner.

 

Obviously you disagree with me, AZcachemeister, and all the others who find this take on caching distasteful and at the very least elitist. I'm certain as well, that you will not mind if I see this disagreement through to its conclusion via the proper channels with Admin. But I intend to continue to seek this cache's archival.

 

--Jeffrey Thompsen--

TucsonThompsen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Fri 3/28/08 5:16 PM

To: jeffrey thompsen

Cc: michael@Groundspeak.com

 

"Elitist"?

 

It is obvious to me, Jeff, that you take this matter personally and you have made it personal to you. That was actually obvious to me from your first email to me in which you condescendingly referred to my status as a "new" cacher, even though I am not. Facts and logic have nothing to do with this issue. You just don't like my having put the cache there, and you don't like the reviewer, RoadRunner.

 

Neil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Jeffrey Thompsen

Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:29:38

To:Neil Singh

Subject: RE: [GEO] neilends contacting TucsonThompsen from Geocaching.com

 

OK....any reason you deleted my log from your cache? You do realize that I found the purple flashlight container. Just curious here. Barring that, I will re-post my log.

 

--Jeffrey Thompsen--

TucsonThompsen

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Mon 3/31/08 9:38 AM

Reply-to:

To: Jeffrey Thompsen (jeffrey_thompsen@hotmail.com)

 

Yes. You encouraged people to cheat. Remove that language and I won't re-delete. I will edit the cache puzzle to make it more difficult for cachers to cheat in future.

 

Thanks, Neil -----

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey Thompsen"

Sent 3/31/2008 9:42:19 AM

To: Neil Singh

Subject: RE: [GEO] neilends contacting TucsonThompsen from Geocaching.com

 

Is it cheating to look through the window? Or is it cheating to call the restaurant and have the wait staff do the dirty work fo you?

 

Both I did.

 

--Jeff--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Mon 3/31/08 10:16 AM

To: Jeffrey Thompsen

 

I could care less what you did. If you remove the language encouraging people to cheat, I won't re-delete.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Mon 3/31/08 10:38 AM

To: Jeffrey Thompsen

 

Whoops, the site just pulled my cache. I have better things to do than throw a hissyfit about it like you. Too bad you're too much of a loser to have tried the place out, but you do live in Tucson so your behavior makes sense. -----

 

neil

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeffrey Thompsen

Sent: Mon 3/31/08 2:21 PM

To: Neil Singh

 

Neil,

 

Well...I'm sorry you feel the need to go on personal attacks to justify your sentiments. I never attacked you but only expressed my concerns over a cache that clearly violated the Groundspeak terms of service.

 

Obviously, I was not the only one who expressed concern. But you chose to go after me on a personal level. So be it. Frankly, I am happy that Groundspeak retracted this listing for the obvious reasons that it is correcting a wrong which never should have occured in the first place. I am certain that if you chose to re-do the cache in a way that did not require people to spend money at a third party business to get the final coords, then the cache would be allowed. Perhaps you could think of a way to come up with offsets that put the final at the business on the outside. Truly, if your aim is to expose people to the restaurant, then placing a cache outside of it is about as good as you can expect. But you should not expect in future to have GC.com serve as what is tantamount to free advertising for the pizza place.

 

--Jeffrey Thompsen--

TucsonThompsen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Singh

Sent: Mon 3/31/08 2:40 PM

To: Jeffrey Thompsen

 

The personal attacks in your emails to me and about me speak for themselves, Jeff. I don't feel see a point to arguing about it with you of all people. It's funny that you should pretend to be offended.

 

I can't "advertise" for a restaurant I have no commercial interest in. If I really wanted to fight this I would but I have better things to do. Again, if I lived in Tucson I guess I'd be bitter and spend all my time attacking people's caches out of boredom too.

 

Cheers,

Neil

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anyways....I am curious how TPTB decide commercialization and I do wish for tighter enforcement of the current guidelines here in AZ. It certainly seems we are getting to be the Wild West again where there is no law, when it comes to cache placement.

 

--TT--

 

[edited to remove e-mail addresses.]

Edited April 7, 2008 by TucsonThompsen

[+sbell111]

Actually I can verify a couple of things about this one, for those of you who, like Paul Harvey want the "rest of the story".

 

1) No. The cache page was not altered by the owner. It was as listed and not edited after publication. How do I know? Well. I got the notification and downloaded the .GPX file to my GSAK within 1 minute of publication.

 

2) Technically speaking this cache did not absolutely require one to go into the restaurant. Because the owner was so massively "clever" he put the puzzle coords in DD.ddddd format where you needed only to figure out the first three numbers. Because of the two mile restriction, it pretty much limited the first two answers to being the same as the listed coords. The third answer could be determined from looking though the establishment's window. I actually went up there and found the cache and posted my log (which was later deleted by the owner). I don't seem to have a copy of my log available, but I did note that it was possible to do this one if you were shrewd enough without having to go into the restaurant. The owner deleted my find saying I was encouraging others to "cheat" by telling them you didn't HAVE to go into Pizzeria Bianco.

 

But I believe in transparency in this matter. So here for public dissemination is the correspondence regarding the nature of the cache goes, between myself (TucsonThompsen) and neilends.

(I really like the end emails wherein I'm criticised for simply being a Tucsonan).

 

<SNIP>

You might want to remove the email addresses from your post. There's transparency and then there's an engraved invitation to spam. Edited April 8, 2008 by Keystone

[+DonB!]

On this same topic, correct me if I am wrong.

 

1) We are not supposed to place caches in State Parks.

2) We should not be required to purchase, or pay, for anything to get to the cache.

 

During my recent trip to the west coast, I was required to pay 3 separate fees in order to find many caches. These were all "area use permits" at $3/each. There was no way to the caches without paying the permit fee.

 

Also, I know of 3 caches that were just approved a week ago in a State Park that requires a state park pass (with fees) to get it.

 

What am I missing? What don't I understand yet?

 

DonB!

"A Happy Cacher"

[+sbell111]

On this same topic, correct me if I am wrong.

 

1) We are not supposed to place caches in State Parks.

2) We should not be required to purchase, or pay, for anything to get to the cache.

 

During my recent trip to the west coast, I was required to pay 3 separate fees in order to find many caches. These were all "area use permits" at $3/each. There was no way to the caches without paying the permit fee.

 

Also, I know of 3 caches that were just approved a week ago in a State Park that requires a state park pass (with fees) to get it.

 

What am I missing? What don't I understand yet?

 

DonB!

"A Happy Cacher"

Caches in state parks are OK, unless the park has a rule against caches.

 

Having to pay an entrance fee at a not-for-profit location (like a state park) is also OK.

[+J-Way]

Caches in state parks are OK, unless the park has a rule against caches.

 

Having to pay an entrance fee at a not-for-profit location (like a state park) is also OK.

I agree completely with sbell111. [sound of people shrieking in terror and running helter skelter]

 

It is against the guidelines to place caches where the land owner/land manager doesn't allow them. That includes NATIONAL parks and state parks in a few states. South Carolina, for one, doesn't allow them, and from your post I assume that MN doesn't either. There are gobs of caches in TN, OH, KY, GA, AL, and MS state parks. IL state parks allow them, but the placement rules are so strict that few people bother.

 

There are several caches located near me in a private park where you have to pay a $4 daily use fee. But it's owned by the Audobahn Society, which is not for profit, so exceptions were made.