Jump to content

Stand alone camping events


Recommended Posts

I think you have to decide what the 'prime reason' for hosting a gathering is. If it's geocaching then I personally don't believe that you should force people endure a night under canvas in order to collect the 'Attended' smilie. If the reason you're hosting a gathering is primarily to enjoy the perceived delights of camping with a bit of geocaching chucked in on the side, then you're doing it on the wrong website. You should be organising it on 'come-camping.com' or some such website that caters for the camping enthusiast and leave the geocaching site to those whos prime enjoyment is geocaching. Just my opinion!

 

You cannot have an event that is primarily for geocaching. By your logic NO event is valid.

Link to post

I think you have to decide what the 'prime reason' for hosting a gathering is. If it's geocaching then I personally don't believe that you should force people endure a night under canvas in order to collect the 'Attended' smilie. If the reason you're hosting a gathering is primarily to enjoy the perceived delights of camping with a bit of geocaching chucked in on the side, then you're doing it on the wrong website. You should be organising it on 'come-camping.com' or some such website that caters for the camping enthusiast and leave the geocaching site to those whos prime enjoyment is geocaching. Just my opinion!

I'm afraid that your opinion does not concure with that of Groundspeak's

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.
Link to post

I think you have to decide what the 'prime reason' for hosting a gathering is. If it's geocaching then I personally don't believe that you should force people endure a night under canvas in order to collect the 'Attended' smilie. If the reason you're hosting a gathering is primarily to enjoy the perceived delights of camping with a bit of geocaching chucked in on the side, then you're doing it on the wrong website. You should be organising it on 'come-camping.com' or some such website that caters for the camping enthusiast and leave the geocaching site to those whos prime enjoyment is geocaching. Just my opinion!

 

You cannot have an event that is primarily for geocaching. By your logic NO event is valid.

 

I'm afraid, by that logic, all the London Pub events should be hosted on www.come-drinking.com!

Link to post

Surely common sense has to apply somewhere in all this and we have to remember this is meant to be fun not just a game with so many rules no one dare do anything for fear of falling foul.

 

I organised the CITO event and the local council restricted those attending to over 18 only due to the nature of items in the area. I had the "open to all" bit quoted to me when someone turned up with a toddler despite me informing them of the dangers of the clear up and the council regulations.

 

How come the "open to all" doesnt apply to all caches that prohibit disabled cachers ie wheel chairs bound cachers and those like my self who are too short to reach. "Open to all" is surely merely a guideline. Not the Law.

 

With camping events there are (or the ones I have been to) a whole load of other caches set in the area for the event) so if the campsite doesnt allow day visitors people may be excluded from one cache but have plenty of others to go at.

 

It is hard to please all of the people all of the time or even accommodate them all. ON the "open to all" front what happens if more cachers than can be accommodated turn up at a venue the legal restrictions of the building take over and the "open to all|" is nothing more than words from Groundspeak on a bit of paper.

Link to post

This is an interesting topic. In the past I have seen events which included for example, a meal, and sometimes there was a restriction on numbers due to size limitations of the venue. As these were run on a first come first served basis, they were open to all. Would these now be allowed, as open to all is not quite the same thing as a free for all? In future, would I need to have a 15 minute flash mob outside the venue doors to enable it to be published, and then run a meal as a separate thing? I don't think that the guidelines, as quoted in this thread actually say that.

 

I don't personally have a problem with a camping event which is not open to non-campers. In fact, I chose not to camp at the dreaming spires event a couple of years back as it was so close to home and I do enough camping already. I didn't get a smiley... was I bent out of shape about it?... no. It's only one smiley, not the end of the world. It was my choice, the event was open to me if I chose to camp, I simply did not chose to do so.

 

If in future we have to avoid pubs, campsites, restaraunts, mountains, islands, boats, etc because not all dogs, kids, oaps, people who are skint, etc can attend, then I guess we are down to holding events in shopping malls, preferably on a day when they are shut so there is no temptation to go shopping.

Link to post

 

I'm thinking of organising a camping do in Little Stretton, nr. Church Stretton. UKTim got it spot on in saying there's a difference between one or two waifs and strays turning up, versus a full-on doubling of numbers on camp. I know the camp site is suitable for an adequate number of campers, but I don't know of a suitable pub. There might not be one. I could, of course, pop a log book outside the camp site in a tupperware box outside the campsite gates, and could allow people who sign the book over the weekend to log an "Attend". But what's the point? :mad: I'll TRY to sort a pub event - I think it would add something to the weekend, but I don't think it should be compulsory. :mad:

 

If you're thinking of the campsite at the bottom of Ashes Hollow you could be onto a winner. The footpath passes right through the middle so it shouldn't be an issue for non-campers to drop by over the weekend and there certainly used to be a great little pub just out on the B road within 0.5 km of the site. The beers good IIRC so it shouldn't be too much of a hardship to walk from the site to the pub for an hour or so :ph34r:

Link to post

I'm sorry but I've never seen it written anywhere that you have to organise something in a pub to meet the open to all for a camping event! A on site BBQ or even a specific period for a TB/Geocoin swap on site which was open to visitors still qualifies as Open to all. The Open to all is that that non campers may attend, nothing has changed since the original Kerfuffle already mentioned. And yes one person who complained was a UK cacher who lived within walk distance of the Campsite, who was informed that he/she could not attend unless he/she stopped on site. That made the event a closed one not Open to ALL. And as originally pointed out publishing it was a mistake on my part.

 

Oh and if you wished to hold a event down a Pot Hole, you'd be required to provide proof of permission off the Person/Group who have authority over the Pot Hole which might not be the Land Owner. And the reason for that is due another complaint generated by a UK cacher

 

May I take it this subject was brought up due to your intention to submit a camping event at Halloween? And as the intention has been posted to several forums it's not confidential information.

 

If you wish to hold a camping event open to only those stopping on site, please obtain permission for it off Groundspeak.

Link to post

I'm sorry but I've never seen it written anywhere that you have to organise something in a pub to meet the open to all for a camping event! A on site BBQ or even a specific period for a TB/Geocoin swap on site which was open to visitors still qualifies as Open to all.

And where on this thread has anyone mentioned that you "have to organise something in a pub :mad: .

The Open to all is that that non campers may attend, nothing has changed since the original Kerfuffle already mentioned. And yes one person who complained was a UK cacher who lived within walk distance of the Campsite, who was informed that he/she could not attend unless he/she stopped on site. That made the event a closed one not Open to ALL. And as originally pointed out publishing it was a mistake on my part.

I'm sorry to disagree with you Dave, but if this event was the one that I believe it is near Oxford, then I was involved in the organisation of it and I am certain that only one non-camper requested to visit who was visiting Oxford from another country.

Oh and if you wished to hold a event down a Pot Hole, you'd be required to provide proof of permission off the Person/Group who have authority over the Pot Hole which might not be the Land Owner. And the reason for that is due another complaint generated by a UK cacher

As I am certain you are aware I never intended that to be a proposal for an event :ph34r: . If I did not know better I might think that this was taken OT in an attempt to derail this discussion.

May I take it this subject was brought up due to your intention to submit a camping event at Halloween? And as the intention has been posted to several forums it's not confidential information.

 

If you wish to hold a camping event open to only those stopping on site, please obtain permission for it off Groundspeak.

No you may not take it that that is the case, although I will admit that it was organising this event that made me revisit this subject. An offsite activity has been organised for this event which should satisfy this interpretation of the guidelines.

Link to post

Funnily, although I don't neccessarily agree with Deci, I didn't think he was teddy throwing, just stating his position. I was a bit dismayed at the :ph34r: in his posting, as I had thought this discussion had been just that, a discussion, hopefully no need for anybody to chuck teddys.

 

BTW, I asked if I could attend that certain camping event that is being discussed, as a visitor, and was told no, the campsite owners did not want extra people on site (especially driving on and off at unsocial hours). I accepted that, did not throw a hissy fit and attended the Sunday event. As I have said, if I had wanted to camp, I could have done so, but I preferred not to.

Link to post

...And yes one person who complained was a UK cacher who lived within walk distance of the Campsite, who was informed that he/she could not attend unless he/she stopped on site. That made the event a closed one not Open to ALL...

 

It WAS open to all, though, just as a cache up a big hill is, for example. Did the complainant have to be pandered to? :mad:

 

To me, it's like me complaining that I couldn't do a Wherigo because I didn't have a suitable device. The answer would quite rightly have been "Tough ****!" or similar :ph34r:

 

The OP, in setting camping events that are open to all, contributes far more than a cacher who chooses not to camp, and decides to complain on that basis!

 

BTW - Nice to have a level discussion here imo, good to see it staying calm, and banding opinions about... discussion is a good thing! :mad:

Link to post
Following along the line of the surely forcing the local caching population to payout and camp in their own backyard is quite unfair IMO

 

Nobody is forced to do anything they don't want to do. You can choose not to go, just like you can choose whether to go to a pub event. I have camped at 2 events within 5 miles of my home and will be doing so again this weekend. I don't feel 'forced', I just count myself lucky that I don't have to travel as far as some folks do.

 

To turn round and to these people and say you can't come unless you have a tent just isn't right and to my mind quite selfish.

 

By the same token, if a campsite owner does not want visitors on site, is it 'quite selfish' for someone to expect a second venue to be organised just so that they can get a smiley?

Edited by Pengy&Tigger
Link to post

 

By the same token, if a campsite owner does not want visitors on site, is it 'quite selfish' for someone to expect a second venue to be organised just so that they can get a smiley?

 

Is it possible to avoid the need to organise any venues and cause problems with reviewers and GS by keeping it simple. Instead of headlining an event as a "camping event" or a "pub meet", keep it simple and organise a simple stroll around an area.

 

It should then be easy for those so inclined to informally fix things up to have a bar meal and stop at a local campsite afterwards. It appears that it is attempts to organise the food and accomodation for everyone at the root of this problem. Surely it's a win/win situation if folks can avoid the work and the bureaucracy as well as allowing others more flexibility in one simple move :ph34r:

Link to post

 

By the same token, if a campsite owner does not want visitors on site, is it 'quite selfish' for someone to expect a second venue to be organised just so that they can get a smiley?

 

Is it possible to avoid the need to organise any venues and cause problems with reviewers and GS by keeping it simple. Instead of headlining an event as a "camping event" or a "pub meet", keep it simple and organise a simple stroll around an area.

 

It should then be easy for those so inclined to informally fix things up to have a bar meal and stop at a local campsite afterwards. It appears that it is attempts to organise the food and accomodation for everyone at the root of this problem. Surely it's a win/win situation if folks can avoid the work and the bureaucracy as well as allowing others more flexibility in one simple move :ph34r:

 

i know what you mean, but an event that consists of an afternoon stroll would probably not seem all that popular, keepign in mind that the main GS rule about events is that they CANNOT be a group of people gettign together to go cache hunting... The difficulty with doign it informally is that the campsite may not be able to cater for a significant number, and cachers might be reluctant to travel distances unless there was soemthing a bit more formalised and 'certain'.

 

And I believe Simply Paul has tried to organise a number of events that were indeed just a stroll, and these were deemed not open to all, as one of them the stroll was up a mountain, and the other was a stroll in the dark. (I may be wrong, but I think that's essentially the case!)

Link to post

If the campsite owner is not happy with day visitors then an alternative location should be found (although I can appreciate this can be difficult). Lets not forget the site owners are the ones making the profit, if they want to ban day visitors then it should their loss.

 

I agree that a token pub meet (or something similar) is a little pointless and probably won't carry the spirit of a camping focused event - but I stand by my original point that local cachers who spent the time and effort placing nearby caches should not be penalised just because they don't want to camp.

 

penalised ? we are talking about one smiley here, why such a big deal over it ?

Link to post

 

By the same token, if a campsite owner does not want visitors on site, is it 'quite selfish' for someone to expect a second venue to be organised just so that they can get a smiley?

 

Is it possible to avoid the need to organise any venues and cause problems with reviewers and GS by keeping it simple. Instead of headlining an event as a "camping event" or a "pub meet", keep it simple and organise a simple stroll around an area.

 

It should then be easy for those so inclined to informally fix things up to have a bar meal and stop at a local campsite afterwards. It appears that it is attempts to organise the food and accomodation for everyone at the root of this problem. Surely it's a win/win situation if folks can avoid the work and the bureaucracy as well as allowing others more flexibility in one simple move :lol:

 

i know what you mean, but an event that consists of an afternoon stroll would probably not seem all that popular, keepign in mind that the main GS rule about events is that they CANNOT be a group of people gettign together to go cache hunting... The difficulty with doign it informally is that the campsite may not be able to cater for a significant number, and cachers might be reluctant to travel distances unless there was soemthing a bit more formalised and 'certain'.

 

And I believe Simply Paul has tried to organise a number of events that were indeed just a stroll, and these were deemed not open to all, as one of them the stroll was up a mountain, and the other was a stroll in the dark. (I may be wrong, but I think that's essentially the case!)

 

I use the term stroll to imply that a walk is easy. It wouldn't include walks up mountains or stumbling about in the dark. If a group of cachers attending such a walk decide to do bigger things it could be a private arrangement, they'd still enjoy a good walk and would it really be necessary to log it?

 

As for the desirability of events I find it somewhat bizarre that camping events for the sake of camping are somehow more popular , I guess it takes all kinds :ph34r: Personally camping and pubs are something you do after a good walk, climb etc rather burning time and fuel just to camp or have a few beers. I have a bed at home and a pub just down the road :unsure:

Link to post

A quick search shows how level the playing field is:

 

GC1DYNV

GC1G81H

GC1AWWC

GC1DKE3

GC1G1T2

 

:ph34r:

 

It's probably useful to look at those events and work out where they differ from an event that is based at a single fee charging campsite :unsure:

Link to post

penalised ? we are talking about one smiley here, why such a big deal over it ?

 

From my POV its nothing to do with getting a smiley, its respect.

 

works both ways though - Jaz666 went to a huge amount of hard work to run the Mega fox hunt, and a number of teams put a lot of time, effort and money into completeing it (and having a fantastic time) but, byt that reasoning, neither Jaz or the completeing teams were respected enough to be allowed to restrict logs to those that completed the 'event'. Now I have no real problem with cachers logging the event from the car park, but if everyone did that, then why should Jamie have bothered going to the hard work, or all us cachers that completed the event to get a 5/5, when we could have stayed in the car park!

 

before I get flamed, this is NOT an attack on those that did this - it was specifically allowed, and its only a game after all! It would be interesting to know the opinion of those that didn't do the driving bit though, if they HAD to drive to log, would they have minded? It is, after all, only a smiley! Plenty more availble that week!

Link to post

penalised ? we are talking about one smiley here, why such a big deal over it ?

 

From my POV its nothing to do with getting a smiley, its respect.

 

Sometimes, despite all the best efforts and intentions, it's just not possible to organise a day event for every camping event. Surely you'll respect that? :ph34r:

Link to post
I stand by my original point that local cachers who spent the time and effort placing nearby caches should not be penalised just because they don't want to camp.

 

They are not being penalised if they CHOOSE not to camp. Just like I'm not being penalised if I CHOOSE not to go to a pub. In both cases, events are open to all, you make the CHOICE whether to go or not.

 

I'm not sure what being a placer of local caches has to do with it. Surely you put out caches to be found? If you're not happy with campers finding your caches, you could always take your ball home by temping them a few days before the event.

Link to post

A quick search shows how level the playing field is:

 

GC1DYNV

GC1G81H

GC1AWWC

GC1DKE3

GC1G1T2

 

:ph34r:

 

It's probably useful to look at those events and work out where they differ from an event that is based at a single fee charging campsite :unsure:

 

Deci has stated on this thread that the commercial aspect of the camp sites was not the issue, so I fail to see where that would take us. I thought we were debating if a camping event is open to all or not - and these listings indicate that they are in America.

 

Having said that, here is a quote from one of the event pages: "There is a fee to get into the park, in addition to your camping fee:". So not much doubt there that you will have to pay!

Edited by The Royles
Link to post

I'm not a UK cacher but read this thread with interest. I'm afraid the more I follow this thread the more confused I get. At a stage I understood the one side, then the other side, and now I do not know which side.

 

My gut feel is that cachers should be allowed to stage whatever events they want to (commercial aside - that is another topic remember). If nobody likes it then nobody will pitch up ( there must be a Latin phrase to explain that - something like QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM).

 

I am of the opinion of you want to host a camping event, you host a camping event. If nobody pitches, you have a problem - your event is not popular. If folks arrive and enjoy it then all is fine. If folks arrive and all is fine and then if some other folks complain: then they have a problem. Something like that.

 

One way to circumvent the rules is to hang a logbook at the gate of the camping site. Then everyone who wants to log a smiley would be welcome to do so. Having said this, I cannot see a problem with a local wanting to attend the event but not wanting to do the camping bit. As you can see, I am really confused. But that brings one back to the point of why is there a rule in the first place.

 

I get the impression that Groundspeak/Reviewers have got themselves into an unneccessary hole with too many rules, which somehow deviates from the spontenaeity of the game.

 

My solution would be: Host a camping event. Explain what it is all about (eg camp Friday, cache Saturday, camp Saturday, CITO Sunday, go home) and then state that the event owner/instigator will carry the logbook around with him/her. Anybody who signs the logbook gets the smiley. Doesn't that cover all bases?

 

Disclaimer: I have not spellchecked this posting.

Link to post

My gut feel is that cachers should be allowed to stage whatever events they want to (commercial aside - that is another topic remember). If nobody likes it then nobody will pitch up ( there must be a Latin phrase to explain that - something like QUAD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM).

 

I am of the opinion of you want to host a camping event, you host a camping event. If nobody pitches, you have a problem - your event is not popular. If folks arrive and enjoy it then all is fine. If folks arrive and all is fine and then if some other folks complain: then they have a problem. Something like that.

 

I think that sums it up perfectly :ph34r:

 

The mods came to a decision some time ago that was made entirely in the best interests of caching in this country. However, times and opinions have changed, and perhaps its time for a rethink - what about it guys (and gals)? :unsure:

Link to post

Sorry folks but I've received a communication from someone who has posted to this topic that using a link in this persons signature/profile 2 members of the Geocaching community have sent abusive emails. Due to the recipient stating a opposing view to those sending the emails. As the emails were sent by a off GC web site but which was accessed by a link in forum posts in this topic. I feel I have No Option but to close this topic.

 

I have personally apologised to the recipient of the abusive emails, on behalf of the rest of the community.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer/Moderator Geocaching.com

Link to post

Since its here and reopened and I didn't comment before its closure heres my 2p worth:

 

Camping events should definitely be events in their own right. Its silly to force organisers to make an off site event too. As has been mentioned by many people, it is the individuals choice if they wish to attend in the same way it is my choice to camp. I can't access many events as I live too far away making it too expensive to get too but I can't complain about that, its no ones fault. Camping events by their nature will cost money. As for locals attending... During Mega week I know many locals camped with everyone, its part of the event itself. Coming to a pub for a drink isn't attending a camping event just as visiting a car park wasn't for Jaz66's hunt event in the summer!

 

Pub events do not require a separate event for non-drinkers/youths to be able to log it so why campsites??

 

And finally, I hope whoever it was that sent the emails that caused the closure of this thread are ashamed! Although I also hope they won't be able to read this due to a ban!

Link to post

I've read this thread and the further I get into it the more confussed I get .

A Camping Event - to me this implies that I have to go somewhere and pitch a tent and stay over night.

If I havent got a tent - I can't go . (although you can buy a cheap tent for a £10 so that's not the biggest problem.)

If the event is to far away to justify the travelling costs - I can't go .

Why do people think that by just turning up for 5 minutes they can claim a smiley when the idea is to get people together for an experience spread over a few hours or a couple of days.

Seems to me that the number hunters are trying to find ways to log all caches wether or not they are prepared to turn up and take part - and that IMHO is WRONG .

Likewise if I attend an event where I have spent all day hiking up a mountain and someone else turns up for a drink afterwards and claims a smiley I think it's hardly fair that we have we have not done the same type of activity to claim the smiley.

Open to all - to me this means - Open to all who are prepared to come and take part in what ever has been organised and for whatever length of time it has been organised for.

Discuss :rolleyes:

Link to post
Open to all - to me this means - Open to all who are prepared to come and take part in what ever has been organised and for whatever length of time it has been organised for.

Discuss :rolleyes:

 

 

Agree wholeheartedly with this statement well said Beefy

 

 

Dave

Link to post
If I attend an event where I have spent all day hiking up a mountain and someone else turns up for a drink afterwards and claims a smiley I think it's hardly fair that we have we have not done the same type of activity to claim the smiley.

This might be taking things along a slightly different tangent and I'm not arguing with anything you say but if you do the task and get the smiley and feel great for it why should the fact that someone else only do half the task and also get it take away from what you have achieved/completed/whatever? Surely as the smiley is self-awarded then its merely self-gratification and a marker of personal achievement only. Another's smiley count shouldn't affect this :rolleyes:

 

An example of this could be you and me at the recent Mourne event. You made it the whole way up the mountain and had a very significant personal achievement and that smiley means a whole lot to you. I drove 2.5hours to spend an hour talking to people in the car park before I had to go home again (against my will I might add!). My smiley is merely a marker to remind me that I was there, who I met and what happened. My lack of achievement doesn't take away from your significant one

Link to post
If I attend an event where I have spent all day hiking up a mountain and someone else turns up for a drink afterwards and claims a smiley I think it's hardly fair that we have we have not done the same type of activity to claim the smiley.

This might be taking things along a slightly different tangent and I'm not arguing with anything you say but if you do the task and get the smiley and feel great for it why should the fact that someone else only do half the task and also get it take away from what you have achieved/completed/whatever? Surely as the smiley is self-awarded then its merely self-gratification and a marker of personal achievement only. Another's smiley count shouldn't affect this :)

 

An example of this could be you and me at the recent Mourne event. You made it the whole way up the mountain and had a very significant personal achievement and that smiley means a whole lot to you. I drove 2.5hours to spend an hour talking to people in the car park before I had to go home again (against my will I might add!). My smiley is merely a marker to remind me that I was there, who I met and what happened. My lack of achievement doesn't take away from your significant one

That's true Dino and it was good to meet you there (pity about the weather that morning)and though the example I use in my post sounds like the Mourne Event it's not about it at all . It is based on what someone else was talking about further up the thread.And I didn't get as far up the hill as some others did.:rolleyes:

I suppose we sometimes get caught up in the nitty gritty of the "rules and regulations " instead of playing the game.

Edit - After a little thought possibly what I think I am trying to say is this - If I see that someone else has logged the cache I sort of expect that that person has went through the same things that I had to do to claim the cache for example -

1- if it's a camping event - we all camped out

2- If its a hill walking event - we all walked up the hill

3- if it's a puzzle cache we all worked out the puzzle by ourselves and nobody gave us the answer.

Edited by Beefy4605
Link to post

I think the key to whether something is 'open to all' or not depends on whether a restriction is placed on attendees by the organiser, rather than a potential attendee themselves.

 

So, if for example a camping event was organised where the site was only available to camping and caravanning club members, that would mean it wasn't open to all. Another example would be if someone was organising an event and only wanted people they knew to attend - similarly that would not be open to all.

 

If an event has no such restriction, but someone decides they don't like whatever activity is involved, it is still open to them - they have made the personal choice not to go. This would apply to any event whether it be camping, going to a pub, swinging from some trees etc. Of course the organiser could allow people to log for just turning up for 5 minutes or organising an alternative venue, but they shouldn't be obliged to do so, especially if it involves a significant amount of additional organising.

 

Practically speaking, the reviewers probably need to come up with some definition of 'open to all' which would be the key to deciding these things. There seems to be enough opinions on this for the current guideline interpretation to be reviewed.

Link to post

I took the route Deci suggested and mailed Groundspeak at reviewers@geocaching.com asking for the interpretation be reviewed. I am awaiting a reply.

 

I do not consider this to be a complaint (which is Decis wording), rather I see it as a valid question that people would like an answer to.

Link to post

I took the route Deci suggested and mailed Groundspeak at reviewers@geocaching.com asking for the interpretation be reviewed. I am awaiting a reply.

 

I do not consider this to be a complaint (which is Decis wording), rather I see it as a valid question that people would like an answer to.

 

I'd be interested to hear what GSP has to say regarding your question. I suspect you'll receive a quote from the current guidelines in reply.

I think this debate has raised a lot of valid points, and if GSP takes the time to fully consider them, I'm sure a sensible approach can be found.

Link to post

Open to all - to me this means - Open to all who are prepared to come and take part in what ever has been organised and for whatever length of time it has been organised for.

Discuss :ph34r:

 

I think the key to whether something is 'open to all' or not depends on whether a restriction is placed on attendees by the organiser, rather than a potential attendee themselves.

 

Probably the two most relevent sentences in the discussio, IMHO.

Link to post

It wont be long before some of these questions get asked:

 

How long would have to be there for, if it was advertised as a 2 day event? Is 1 night enough? If it starts at 5pm is arriving at 9pm acceptable? Do you have to stay for breakfast? Is a 6am departure too early? Is going out caching during the day acceptable?

 

Do we really want these sort of rules, as I thought it was an activity we did for the fun of it!

Link to post

It wont be long before some of these questions get asked:

 

How long would have to be there for, if it was advertised as a 2 day event? Is 1 night enough? If it starts at 5pm is arriving at 9pm acceptable? Do you have to stay for breakfast? Is a 6am departure too early? Is going out caching during the day acceptable?

 

Do we really want these sort of rules, as I thought it was an activity we did for the fun of it!

Talking about signing the event register...

 

The question is not whether someone should be allowed/disallowed from logging the event, but whether the organiser has to make specific arrangements so that those who don't take part in the event know in advance that they can log it.

 

It seems unreasonable to disallow someone from logging the event even though they turned up for part of the activity.

It's also unreasonable to expect the organiser to make special provision for people who miss part of the event: they have to take the chance that they end up missing the whole thing altogether, or that they are left unable to sign the event register.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to post

It wont be long before some of these questions get asked:

 

How long would have to be there for, if it was advertised as a 2 day event? Is 1 night enough? If it starts at 5pm is arriving at 9pm acceptable? Do you have to stay for breakfast? Is a 6am departure too early? Is going out caching during the day acceptable?

 

Do we really want these sort of rules, as I thought it was an activity we did for the fun of it!

 

obviously, we don't want more rules imposed - its a relaxation of the 'rules' that I'm in favour of, rather than more of them!

 

At the end of the day though, it should be upto the event setter to determine what constitutes a valid 'attend' at his/her event. If they're happy for day attendees at a camping event, then no problem. If they don't mind people attending in the car park for a fox hunt, also no problem. However, and this is purely a somewhat extreme example, if the event is a 'stranded on a desert island for 5 days' event, then they should be permitted to require people to attend for those 5 days!

 

A possibly good side effect of a relaxation of allowable events is more variation in D/T ratings. meeting in a car park is probably only a 1/1. Walking to the top of nevis is a 5* terrain. 5 nights on a desert island might be a 5* difficulty!

Link to post

It wont be long before some of these questions get asked:

 

How long would have to be there for, if it was advertised as a 2 day event? Is 1 night enough? If it starts at 5pm is arriving at 9pm acceptable? Do you have to stay for breakfast? Is a 6am departure too early? Is going out caching during the day acceptable?

 

Do we really want these sort of rules, as I thought it was an activity we did for the fun of it!

 

I'm all for less rules. Caching to me is about freedom from rules and everyday hassle, so the less restriction placed, the better.

 

I'm also all for lessening rules on event setters. By saying that you don't have to have a second (ie, pub) past to an event is removing restrictions.

 

What stipulates an Attend is simple. As I'd see it, if you are meant to climb a mountain, then if you do so, it's an Attend. If you are meant to camp, then if you pitch up, it's an Attend. Most event setters would let you post an Attend if you nipped on site and said hi. The whole thing is essentially about removing the baggage and hassle of having to organise two events in one. I don't think it needs to be broke down as you state :blink: Attend over the duration of the event (even if for only five minutes over a weekend), at the co-ords, and say hi to the event setter in person, and you should log an ATTEND note. If there are additional requirements, these should be stated in the cache listing. End of! :ph34r:

 

Now, these are all up to the event setter, who, just like a cache setter, can delete a log if someone is taking the proverbial. But this is unrelated as to whether stand-alone camping events are permitted :)

 

To climb a mountain, you need good legs. To do a 5/5 you need dexterity. To do a tough puzzle cache, you need a good brain. To do a cache on a river, you need a boat. To do a camping event, you need a tent. To do a cache on a pillar in the middle of a river, you need a helicopter. They are all, however, Open To All.

 

Not open-to-all is where the event setter would try to stop, for example, those with over 100 finds attending.

 

A persons physical and fiscal limits do not currently impinge on whether a cache is published or not, hence the "Parking Fee" attribute, for example, and the Terrain rating of a cache. Long may this freedom to have your cache published, and let's extend this freedom to events too, please :P

Edited by PopUpPirate
Link to post

Attend over the duration of the event (even if for only five minutes over a weekend), at the co-ords, and say hi to the event setter in person, and you should log an ATTEND note. If there are additional requirements, these should be stated in the cache listing. End of! :blink:

Hmm... I thought we had a consensus but after reading that, unless I misunderstand it, I'm not sure we do. I thought the consensus was that it should be up to the event organiser, just as it is with the cache placer, to determine what conditions need to be met to log a find/attend?

 

If it's a camping event then you need to camp (and this implicitly means camp for the night, at least to me); if it's a climb-a-mountain event then you need to climb the mountain (and not by the cog railway, unless the organiser says that's OK). Merely turning up at the campsite in the morning, or driving into the trailhead car park, doesn't do it.

 

The rest of the post I do agree with, though it seems to contradict the bit I quoted :ph34r:.

Link to post

Attend over the duration of the event (even if for only five minutes over a weekend), at the co-ords, and say hi to the event setter in person, and you should log an ATTEND note. If there are additional requirements, these should be stated in the cache listing. End of! :blink:

Hmm... I thought we had a consensus but after reading that, unless I misunderstand it, I'm not sure we do. I thought the consensus was that it should be up to the event organiser, just as it is with the cache placer, to determine what conditions need to be met to log a find/attend?

 

If it's a camping event then you need to camp (and this implicitly means camp for the night, at least to me); if it's a climb-a-mountain event then you need to climb the mountain (and not by the cog railway, unless the organiser says that's OK). Merely turning up at the campsite in the morning, or driving into the trailhead car park, doesn't do it.

 

The rest of the post I do agree with, though it seems to contradict the bit I quoted :ph34r:.

 

I think what PuP was saying is that, at the end of the day, its the organiser's choice, in the same way as found logs on a cache are the placers choice. If an organiser is happy for attend logs at a camping event by non-campers, then so-be-it. In the same vein, if an extreme cache placer is happy for a cache to be passed down to a finder, thus eliminating any 'challenge', than thats their perogative.

 

Oh, and well said PuP!

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...