Jump to content

The "unwritten rules" of geocache approval


Recommended Posts

Can we agree that there is really no feasible way to write every possible 'rule'?


Can we also agree that the volunteers do their best to interpret the 'rules' as they see them and enforce them as such?


Lastly, can we then agree that if the submitter feels the reviewer (unpaid volunteer) did not enforce the 'rules' correctly, that there is an appeal process that can be submitted for final review?


Folks, I hope it doesn't come to the point where we are forced to purchase, sign and have notarized a 1500 page hardcover book of 'rules'. (Not that it would ever happen, just saying.)


I can appreciate hard work put into a cache, but at some point common sense meets responsibility and accountability.

I think this is a good summary of the matter. I will admit that I did not consider navicache.com to be a commercial site, in part because the domain is registered directly to an individual instead of a corporate entity. However, there of course is a "donate" button on the main page. All things considered, I can see why the listing was refused, however I (nor the volunteer reviewer who had to relay the stone tablets from the mountain to me) never quite got this message, just a rather blunt "referrals to navicache.com will not be approved".


In the end, I ended up rewriting my geocaching.com cache description to provide the coordinates and difficulty ratings of "a cache with the final coordinates", and not mentioning anything about what other sites this cache might be registered with. The approval did finally go through, after around three days of extra delay.


I'll admit that most of my upset was caused by the rather blunt and offhand dismissal without elaboration. I guess I'll just have to be happy the geocaching.com contact system and these forums no longer censor the word "navicache" the way they used to, or we could not be having this discussion :mad:


The reaction in these forums to my original text was somewhat… interesting, as I've never before been accused of so many different wrongs based on one message. Yes, I had repeatedly read the guidelines, I just stumbled on the exact definition of "commercial" used. Sorry about the possible (hopefully minor) misspellings, English is not my native language — let's see you write something in Finnish. I feel the McDownalls/BurglarKing analogy is rather forced, as always on the internet, we're not talking about a tangible product but information. A more apt analogy would be two competing phone books, where one would disallow cross-listing or even mention of the other's existence.


Signing off, once a decent man, but now the Infamous Perjurer, the Montana Thief, the Body-Snatcher, incarnate Delirium Tremens, Filthy Corruptionist and Loathsome Embracer (with thanks to Mark Twain)

Edited by ExTechOp
Link to comment
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...