Jump to content

Censorship in GeoCaching ?


spagr

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

in one of my trips I set up a cache in North Korea. Real container with alternative log conditions. You can find the cache at - http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 .

 

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

It looks like the North Korean goverement is true, when they are speaking about "Western anti-korean propaganda"... I did not belive that. I thought that GeoCaching is game without frontiers.

Anyway - destroying two Noth Korean caches means, that "there is no game for everyone"...

 

Yes, you can say "virtual caches are not alowed !". That is true. But this one is REAL chache - logbook hidden in mocro - container. And there is another chance to log - if you cannot find the container.

There are many caches with "alternative log conditions in Asia". For example - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-da01e4dd2e63 or http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b4-df3d53a8432b .

 

Plaese can you write me your oppinion ?

 

Regards

 

Pavel Spacek

Link to comment

Well, here's my opinion for what it's worth ;)

 

Your Description reads like a thinly veiled attempt to promote an Agenda. You roll out *facts* to support your rather transparent point of view.

 

You state that a GPS is not allowed in North Korea (which I don't doubt at all), so your Listing, at face value, would fail the following requirement of the Guidelines:

 

GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching.

 

And finally, your attempt to provide an alternative logging method is an apparent end-run around this portion of the Guidelines:

 

We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches...

 

As far as....

 

...but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

 

I'm not sure how you derived that conclusion based on the Archival of Listing that apparently appears to have several Guideline violations :D

Link to comment

I thnk you tried to create a Virtual cache in a country. After being informed that you couldn't create a Virtual cache and have it listed on this geocaching.com site you then looked for a way around that.

 

Did you then go back to the country and place a nano? It's not good enough to say "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." If there are two people to maintain the cache they should be able to replace a missing nano for you. Also, one of the requirements for listing a cache on this site is that a GPS must be used to get the co-ordinates and also a GPS should be necessary for the search for the cache. Telling people that you will accept photographs instead is a Virtual cache by another name.

 

Apparently you also edited the cache page after approval by the reviewer - presumable you thought it would not be noticed and you'd get away with that sleight of hand? ;)

 

It makes no difference which country it is - You tried to create a cache that was against the listing requirements of this site. Don't try to make some spurious political issue out of it.

 

No doubt you could get your cache listed on some other geocaching listing site which has different guidelines.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

 

Geocaching hates North Korean chinlren. :laughing::cool:

 

Will that one ever get old? :D

 

Anything that is truly funny is worth running into the ground. :laughing::laughing:;)

Link to comment

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

 

Geocaching hates North Korean chinlren. :D:laughing:

 

Will that one ever get old? ;)

Nope! :laughing:

Link to comment

Hello,

 

in one of my trips I set up a cache in North Korea. Real container with alternative log conditions. You can find the cache at - http://coord.info/GC2F0R6 .

 

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

It looks like the North Korean goverement is true, when they are speaking about "Western anti-korean propaganda"... I did not belive that. I thought that GeoCaching is game without frontiers.

Anyway - destroying two Noth Korean caches means, that "there is no game for everyone"...

 

Yes, you can say "virtual caches are not alowed !". That is true. But this one is REAL chache - logbook hidden in mocro - container. And there is another chance to log - if you cannot find the container.

There are many caches with "alternative log conditions in Asia". For example - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-da01e4dd2e63 or http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b4-df3d53a8432b .

 

Plaese can you write me your oppinion ?

 

Regards

 

Pavel Spacek

 

Don't be silly. America LOVES North Korea ! You know, silly propaganda is all about words, but our actions define us. North Korea's biggest and closest ally is China. We have always celebrated Independence day with Chinese fireworks, and lately Chinese made American flags, that line our streets. Our most popular "blue box" (wink, wink) department store is loaded with mostly Chinese goods, and now China owns our General Motors ! China even bailed us out of the financial collapse, and owns most of our bonds. Whats that, one degree of separation? My freind, do you think Americans would sell out, just to save a few bucks? Plus, Kim Jong keeps us entertained with his funny hair and clothing !

 

mylove-free%20hugs.jpg

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

This sounds like a very interesting idea for a cache.

 

I think one problem you may be having is this (I'm making assumptions based on posts in this thread and entries on the cache page, so forgive me if I get anything wrong):

 

- It looks like you originally listed the cache as a virtual, which I can see as a potentially reasonable response to the various difficulties of listing caches in North Korea. I don't fault you for that - there are other examples of unique caches being listed that don't fit the guidelines exactly (such as the ISS cache).

 

- After it was declined, you submitted a cache page saying that there is a magnetic nano container at the posted coordinates, but that "you will not be wondering, if the container is lost", and saying that you'll accept photo evidence in case the container is missing.

 

- The problem that the reviewer is facing is this. Judging from the submission date and the waypoint of the cache page, the listing was created on September 11th. On September 4th you were caching in the Czech Republic, as on the 11th, 12th and 19th. So it doesn't look like you have been back to North Korea since you first listed the cache.

 

- If you originally placed a physical container, it would have made sense to list the cache as a physical Traditional. It seems quite odd not to, actually. But only after your Virtual listing was declined was mention then made of a physical container. You can see the dilemma that the reviewer faces. From his perspective, it doesn't appear likely that a physical container is in place.

 

I think looking for creative ways to adapt caches to different situations is a fantastic endeavor, and I do applaud you for trying to figure something out here. At the end of the day, the guidelines are not laws and exceptions can be made.

 

But - and I can't stress this enough - efforts have to made to make Groundspeak know that you're laying all of your cards face up on the table and are working with them openly and honestly to create something. Being up front with the reviewers ahead of time goes a million billion miles towards making it likely that a cache idea that doesn't fit in the same "box" as the typical geocache can get listed here. The way that the communication surrounding this cache unfolded, I can understand where the reviewer was coming from when archiving the listing.

 

I really don't think that there is an anti-North Korea philosophy here. I simply think it was a cache listing that violated a few guidelines, and which left the reviewer unsure whether or not he was getting the whole picture.

 

I think GOF's suggestion is a fairly decent one - perhaps a listing on Waymarking.com would help bridge the gap.

Link to comment

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

 

Geocaching hates North Korean chinlren. :laughing::laughing:

 

Will that one ever get old? ;)

Nope! :laughing:

Never. :D

 

You are lucky I am not the reviewer. Those would already be archived. It is a long standing policy of GC.com not to allow traditional caches to be converted to virtual caches. Replace the container or archive the cache and re-list it when you put out a new cache.

 

This is not about anything political. It is about doing what everyone else has to do as it relates to caches. You need to abide by the same guidelines as everyone else. Simply replace the cache or archive it.

Link to comment
And this "GPS is not alowed by law in North Korea, so if you have one, leave it on the airport !!! " If a GPSr is not allowed by law, then how were the coordinates obtained?

I can't speak for the CO, but I've had a lot of success using Google Maps to obtain coordinates. I place most of my caches that way. In the concrete canyons of NYC, the phenomenal difficulty of getting accurate readings combined with the incredible resolution of satellite maps of the area makes for far superior final figures. Being able to compare multiple GPS sources (Google, Bing, etc.) has helped a lot in recent months.

 

I know that the guidelines say this: "You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions."

 

But I have always read / interpreted that as drawing a distinction between geocaching and other types of puzzle- or clue-based hunts (like Letterboxing, etc.) - i.e., it's not "follow this tree twenty paces, turn left at the orange rock, etc." It's "here are the coordinates, if you go to this exact spot on this big blue ball, you will find what I've hidden there." The crucial element of geocaching is preserved - posting accurate GPS coordinates, and those being the basis of the hunt to follow.

 

We have a local cacher who can't afford a GPSr, and who literally breaks out topo maps on her kitchen table to chart out where caches must be, taking them into the field to help her hunt. I think she's bloody brilliant.

 

Anyway, to my surprise, there are some pretty decent satellite images of North Korea.

Link to comment

THX addisonbr . Your post explains a lot ... now I see where is the problem. And you are right - it loks like you explained. But as I have written before - there is micro container. And the photos should be "alternative log condition".

 

add to knowschad post - do you know, how many cache hunters try to find the cache just using Google maps ? Yes, it is not easy. So the difficulty of "Korean Cache" is not low too.

 

Yes, I now understand your reasons, why to archive the cache.

 

Just a small notes -

 

add GOF & Bacall -

1) if you delete all the caches, that are made "not in home area", you must delete 50% of them. And this will affect probably the most interesting caches.

2) Agenda ? You mean political agenda ? I hope, that I made the cache as much as not political ...

 

add Touchstone -

1) "GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching" - yes, that is true. But do you know any cache, that is inside the cave or somewhere, when you cannot use GPS ? I know plenty of them. So this cache should be another "find your way without GPS".

2) "We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches..." - this is Traditional cache. With alternative log condition. And as I have written - there are plenty of them, especialy in Asia.

 

 

BTW - why do you think there is no Cache in North Korea ? Please, admins, can you write here the number of archived caches in North Korea ? THX

Link to comment

BTW - why do you think there is no Cache in North Korea ? Please, admins, can you write here the number of archived caches in North Korea ? THX

Why no caches? I'd take a wild guess and say it's because GPSr's are illegal in country. Since this game/sport is based on the use of GPS, that's a bit of a hindrance. Also, the lack of internet access to cache information and the risk of being thrown into in a "work camp" for 10 years (or more) for sneaking around.

 

As for how many caches have been archived in North Korea...what difference does it make whether the answer is 0, small or large?

Link to comment

Keep digging that hole.

 

"vacation" cache are a violation of the guidelines. If you know of any they are in violation of the guidelines. You made up percentage is silly at best.

 

The cache was agenda leaden. It is no better than the supposed propaganda you complain about.

 

I think it would be wonderful if there were some caches in North Korea. But in order for them to be listed on the Geocaching.com site they will need to adhere to the guidelines in place for that site. So if you want to hide them you will probably need to talk to the North Korean government about the laws prohibiting GPS use.

Link to comment

You know what? You're right. There is censorship in geocaching.

 

You can't mention certain brand names in the forums. You can't use "salty" language. You can't publish new Virtual caches, or caches with agendas, or caches with Additional Logging Requirements.

 

It's Groundspeak's servers, and software, and their database. They let us use it. They get to make the rules.

 

You are perfectly free to create your own website and list your North Korean geocache there. But in Groundspeak's house, you have to follow Groundspeak's rules.

Link to comment

I do not see the cache as promoting an agenda and there seems to be a maintenance plan in place for the container. But there is a difference between finding a cache in a cave, where gps reception can at least get you close (and hopefully identify how far in the cave you will have to venture) and one in a country where use of the gpsr is banned. It hardly seems possible to obtain even "adequate permission" to place a cache there or to fulfill the guideline requirement for gpsr use in obtaining the coordinates.

 

In any event, I am not sure I would be wanting to look on a lamp post for a nano in a public square in North Korea. Dear Leader might wonder if it was being used to convey a secret and it may take a visit by President Carter or Clinton to secure my release.

 

So that would leave the alternative logging method, which comes down to a virtual. Jeremy has indicated that some form of virtuals may return to geocaching, so perhaps there may yet be a cache in North Korea (if gpsr use is ever permitted so the cache can be placed in accordance with the guidelines or a special exception is made by Groundspeak).

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

I actually notice that when searching for caches by country, there is no drop-down entry for North Korea at all. I find that interesting. That there happen to be no caches in North Korea is not crazy to me, given the various difficulties. But it seems to be a country that doesn't exist at all, according to the groundspk search function.

 

From the online form for listing a new cache, North Korea is an option. Just not when searching.

 

I don't think it's because of the lack of caches, for two reasons. One, that would be an unusual technological feature, to restrict the values in the drop-down menus based on the results of potential future searches. The system would have to constantly run searches to determine what to show in the drop-down menus. Second, there are other countries listed in the drop-down menus with no active caches (like the Pitcairn Islands).

 

Does anyone know why North Korea isn't a search option? If it's a bug, I'll report it on UserVoice; if it's intentional, I'm curious.

Link to comment

 

I don't think it's because of the lack of caches, for two reasons. One, that would be an unusual technological feature, to restrict the values in the drop-down menus based on the results of potential future searches. The system would have to constantly run searches to determine what to show in the drop-down menus. Second, there are other countries listed in the drop-down menus with no active caches (like the Pitcairn Islands).

 

Does anyone know why North Korea isn't a search option? If it's a bug, I'll report it on UserVoice; if it's intentional, I'm curious.

I would assume that the drop down is configurable. So that when a country gets it's first cache it can be added and so it doesn't display every country in the world.

The countries that show up may have had at one time a cache.

 

But both of these ideas are just speculation on my part.

Link to comment
THX addisonbr . Your post explains a lot ... now I see where is the problem. And you are right - it loks like you explained. But as I have written before - there is micro container. And the photos should be "alternative log condition".

Please refer to the guidelines.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

* Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

* Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

* Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

 

add GOF & Bacall -

1) if you delete all the caches, that are made "not in home area", you must delete 50% of them. And this will affect probably the most interesting caches.

As a reviewer, I would confidently say that it is less than 5%. Almost all of those 5% have maintenance plans using local cachers or family members.

 

add Touchstone -

1) "GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching" - yes, that is true. But do you know any cache, that is inside the cave or somewhere, when you cannot use GPS ? I know plenty of them. So this cache should be another "find your way without GPS".

2) "We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches..." - this is Traditional cache. With alternative log condition. And as I have written - there are plenty of them, especialy in Asia.

For part 1, you need to have GPS coordinates for the entrance. That is required. For part 2, see above.

 

BTW - why do you think there is no Cache in North Korea ? Please, admins, can you write here the number of archived caches in North Korea ? THX

One -- yours. Probably because they don't allow GPS devices. No GPS, no hidden caches. To search for caches in North Korea, you have to go to the Advanced Searches page. No need to report this since there are no caches there.

 

Adding the link... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

I would assume that the drop down is configurable. So that when a country gets it's first cache it can be added and so it doesn't display every country in the world.

The countries that show up may have had at one time a cache.

 

But both of these ideas are just speculation on my part.

 

Probably because they don't allow GPS devices. No GPS, no hidden caches.

 

I assumed the same thing, in regard to the search list. But I thought it interesting to note that Syria has a few caches, even though it bans the use of gpsr. As the United States state department warns, "It is also illegal in Syria to possess specific-use electronic devices including GPS, short-wave or handheld radio equipment, or similar devices."

 

Apparently caches placed by foreigners in a country banning gps devices is not a bar in and of itself.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

THX addisonbr . Your post explains a lot ... now I see where is the problem. And you are right - it loks like you explained. But as I have written before - there is micro container.

The part that I wasn't able to follow was, when you placed the micro container there some weeks ago, why didn't you mention it in your original cache listing? That was the part I couldn't understand, and is probably where the reviewer gave pause as well.

Link to comment
But I thought it interesting to note that Syria has a few caches, even though it bans the use of gpsr. As the United States state department warns, "It is also illegal in Syria to possess specific-use electronic devices including GPS, short-wave or handheld radio equipment, or similar devices." Apparently caches placed by foreigners in a country banning gps devices is not a bar in and of itself,

You are speaking from a US perspective about US citizens visiting the area. Limits on US citizens do not specifically extend to others, especially residents of that country I would imagine.

Link to comment

You are speaking from a US perspective about US citizens visiting the area. Limits on US citizens do not specifically extend to others, especially residents of that country I would imagine.

 

I don't think so. Syria bans use of gpsrs to its citizens. It is illegal in that country to use gps devices, although they do not seem to enforce it as efficiently as North Korea. It is one of the two nations in the world that do not permit gpsr use (along with North Korea).

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment
the photos should be "alternative log condition".

Please refer to the guidelines.

...

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

I don't think that that part of the guidelines is on point. ALRs are very different from the type of "alternative log condition" that the OP mentions. ALRs are something extra that you have to do in order to be allowed by the CO to log a cache. The "alternative log condition" is a situation where you can get credit for a cache when it's not in place, by (say) uploading a photo proving that you're there.

 

Those aren't allowed either, of course. I just wanted to make clear that the bolded part that you quoted from actually doesn't have anything to do with this case. The OP is from another culture with a different primary language and I am trying to head off confusion where I can.

 

add GOF & Bacall -

1) if you delete all the caches, that are made "not in home area", you must delete 50% of them. And this will affect probably the most interesting caches.

As a reviewer, I would confidently say that it is less than 5%. Almost all of those 5% have maintenance plans using local cachers or family members.

I feel that it used to be higher than 5% in the types of places that people like to visit. Here in NYC it was definitely higher than 5% when I started out. But since the change in the guidelines regarding vacation caches, it's been virtually stamped out here. I think 5% as an upper bound is pretty safe.

 

Those that are not benefiting from local maintenance plans were likely submitted with a bit of deception and just haven't been detected yet.

 

BTW - why do you think there is no Cache in North Korea ? Please, admins, can you write here the number of archived caches in North Korea ? THX

One -- yours. Probably because they don't allow GPS devices. No GPS, no hidden caches.

As mulvaney points out, other countries have restrictions on GPS devices as well. I don't think a reason this simple is it.

Link to comment

I certainly can appreciate your predicament spagr. Although stating that there are many examples of this sort of Guideline violation in Asia is usually not a very effective argument. Considering the location, and your seemingly unwillingness to conform with one or two portions of the Guidelines, I suspect that such an unusual cache would require Groundspeak approval. Like the ISS Cache, I think there are some unique placements out there which are beyond a Volunteer Reviewers responsibilities.

Link to comment

There are no caches in NK. Why would someone bother to take the time to add that country to the drop down menu? If anyone successfully hides a cache in that country that is then published I am sure they'll add it to the list.

 

As for the ALR-ALC arguement if it is in fact not an ALR it is then a virtual. Either way it is a violation of some part of the guidelines.

Link to comment
There are no caches in NK. Why would someone bother to take the time to add that country to the drop down menu? If anyone successfully hides a cache in that country that is then published I am sure they'll add it to the list.

It's in some menus but not others. It's in the drop-down menu for placing a cache, and it's in the drop-down menu for an advanced search, but it's not in the drop-down menu for the regular search. I suspect it wasn't intentional. I would gently suggest that the appropriate time to add a cache to the "search" drop-down menu is about the same time it's added to the "placement" drop-down menu.

 

As for the ALR-ALC arguement if it is in fact not an ALR it is then a virtual. Either way it is a violation of some part of the guidelines.

It's not an argument. My earlier post was not an attempt to say "Oho, that paragraph doesn't apply, therefore the cache shouldn't have been archived." It was pointed out that an "alternative log condition" as defined by the OP isn't allowed either.

 

But when dealing with folks from a different culture with a different primary language, I think being clear is important, and quoting from the ALR section of the guidelines when they aren't applicable has a lot of potential for confusion. It's a clarification, not an argument.

Link to comment

As for the ALR-ALC arguement if it is in fact not an ALR it is then a virtual. Either way it is a violation of some part of the guidelines.

Someone will have to explain to me where it says a cache owner cannot have a alternative logging method for a cache. Clearly a traditional cache must have a physical log of some kind. And the ALR guideline makes it clear that once the physical log has been signed a cacher may log a find online regardless of anything else the cache owner asks for on page. IMO, is also clear that a cache owner may choose to allow online find logs even if the physical log is not signed. As the guidelines now read, the cache owner may set whatever alternative conditions they want for posting a find when the physical log cannot be signed.

 

I can see TPTB wanting to limit this to prevent it being used as a backdoor virtual caches - which seems to be the OPs intent here. If this is the case, there ought to be a guidelines change or at least a clarification. My greatest worry is that the simple approach will be taken and cache owners will be told to delete logs if the physical log is not signed, and the puritans will have won. ;) I think the lesser of two evils would be to allow these alternative logging conditions. There are enough other reasons for archiving the OPs cache that we don't need to invent new guidelines.

Link to comment

It's in some menus but not others. It's in the drop-down menu for placing a cache, and it's in the drop-down menu for an advanced search, but it's not in the drop-down menu for the regular search. I suspect it wasn't intentional. I would gently suggest that the appropriate time to add a cache to the "search" drop-down menu is about the same time it's added to the "placement" drop-down menu.

 

I would guess that some one didn't populate the data into all the relevent fields (or the dbs design doesn't have a single table to auto populate that data).

Link to comment
I can see TPTB wanting to limit this to prevent it being used as a backdoor virtual caches

Right, I think that's the part of the guidelines that would actually apply here. It's not the presence of an alternative log condition in and of itself; it's that as defined by the CO the "ALC" is used to create a virtual cache, which is clearly addressed.

 

I agree with you that an "ALC" in and of itself is not an issue.

Link to comment

As for the ALR-ALC arguement if it is in fact not an ALR it is then a virtual. Either way it is a violation of some part of the guidelines.

Someone will have to explain to me where it says a cache owner cannot have a alternative logging method for a cache. Clearly a traditional cache must have a physical log of some kind. And the ALR guideline makes it clear that once the physical log has been signed a cacher may log a find online regardless of anything else the cache owner asks for on page. IMO, is also clear that a cache owner may choose to allow online find logs even if the physical log is not signed. As the guidelines now read, the cache owner may set whatever alternative conditions they want for posting a find when the physical log cannot be signed.

 

I can see TPTB wanting to limit this to prevent it being used as a backdoor virtual caches - which seems to be the OPs intent here. If this is the case, there ought to be a guidelines change or at least a clarification. My greatest worry is that the simple approach will be taken and cache owners will be told to delete logs if the physical log is not signed, and the puritans will have won. ;) I think the lesser of two evils would be to allow these alternative logging conditions. There are enough other reasons for archiving the OPs cache that we don't need to invent new guidelines.

We are talking apples and oranges here. You are broadening the topic. I think we need to stick to the topic at hand. The cache owner listed a cache, then changed it immediately after it was published specifically to allow finds by adding a virtual component. That is against the guidelines. Let's stay on topic and not drift off into a well discussed subject best suited for yet another topic of its own.

Link to comment
Someone will have to explain to me where it says a cache owner cannot have a alternative logging method for a cache. Clearly a traditional cache must have a physical log of some kind. And the ALR guideline makes it clear that once the physical log has been signed a cacher may log a find online regardless of anything else the cache owner asks for on page. IMO, is also clear that a cache owner may choose to allow online find logs even if the physical log is not signed. As the guidelines now read, the cache owner may set whatever alternative conditions they want for posting a find when the physical log cannot be signed.

And since I know you are going to go back to this...

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

If it cannot be signed, you need to go fix it. If you are not going to fix it, it will probably be archived. You don't add an alternative logging method, you go fix your cache.
Link to comment

 

I don't think it's because of the lack of caches, for two reasons. One, that would be an unusual technological feature, to restrict the values in the drop-down menus based on the results of potential future searches. The system would have to constantly run searches to determine what to show in the drop-down menus. Second, there are other countries listed in the drop-down menus with no active caches (like the Pitcairn Islands).

 

Does anyone know why North Korea isn't a search option? If it's a bug, I'll report it on UserVoice; if it's intentional, I'm curious.

I would assume that the drop down is configurable. So that when a country gets it's first cache it can be added and so it doesn't display every country in the world.

The countries that show up may have had at one time a cache.

 

But both of these ideas are just speculation on my part.

 

There are certainly numerous countries in the select list which do not have geocaches. Burundi, for example, does not have any geocaches. About a year ago or so I posted a list of countries which had 4 or fewer geocachers. If I recall there were a couple of dozen in the select list that did not have any geocaches.

Link to comment
Someone will have to explain to me where it says a cache owner cannot have a alternative logging method for a cache. Clearly a traditional cache must have a physical log of some kind. And the ALR guideline makes it clear that once the physical log has been signed a cacher may log a find online regardless of anything else the cache owner asks for on page. IMO, is also clear that a cache owner may choose to allow online find logs even if the physical log is not signed. As the guidelines now read, the cache owner may set whatever alternative conditions they want for posting a find when the physical log cannot be signed.

And since I know you are going to go back to this...

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

If it cannot be signed, you need to go fix it. If you are not going to fix it, it will probably be archived. You don't add an alternative logging method, you go fix your cache.

The guideline that is being violated then is the cache maintenance guideline and the physical cache guideline

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

Assuming the cache owner placed a physical container, the issue is that he in now back in the Czech Republic and he says "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." This certainly looks like he has no maintenance plan. The cache should not have been approved as it is a vacation cache with no maintenance plan. I agree that an alternative logging condition is not a maintenance plan. There is no need even mention ALRs in the discussion. (So why did you bring them up in post #27?)

Link to comment

 

Assuming the cache owner placed a physical container, the issue is that he in now back in the Czech Republic and he says "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." This certainly looks like he has no maintenance plan. The cache should not have been approved as it is a vacation cache with no maintenance plan. I agree that an alternative logging condition is not a maintenance plan. There is no need even mention ALRs in the discussion. (So why did you bring them up in post #27?)

 

we don't know what the original cache description was when it was published

 

if you read the thread and the logs on the cache page there is clear indication that changes were made after the cache was published

Link to comment

I thought that GeoCaching is game of freedom, game for everyone, but it looks like there is BIG anti-North Korean push by the owners & admins of geocaching.com .

Why ? This is the second archived cache in North Korea.

It looks like the North Korean goverement is true, when they are speaking about "Western anti-korean propaganda"... I did not belive that. I thought that GeoCaching is game without frontiers.

Anyway - destroying two Noth Korean caches means, that "there is no game for everyone"...

 

I think you're way out of line accusing Geocaching.com of being "anti-North Korea."

 

First of all, you seem to have very unrealistic ideas about geocaching. This isn't a game for "everyone." You need internet access and a GPS to play. As far as worldwide participation is concerned, that's a pretty big barrier.

 

Geocaching.com takes measures to avoid listing geocaches on private property without permission, and in places where geocaching is prohibited by law. Did you get permission to place your geocache? Is geocaching legal in North Korea? I think it's very wise for a reviewer to question the long-term viability of a geocache in North Korea.

 

Have you read the guidelines? Take note of this section in particular:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is.

 

Now, Geocaching.com is only one of several websites where you can list geocaches. Perhaps another site would be more welcoming to your North Korean vacation cache. You are also free to create your own website with the coordinates of your geocache. You just can't list it here, because it's in violation of several guidelines that you should have known about before you listed it, and before you started making ridiculous accusations.

Link to comment

 

I assumed the same thing, in regard to the search list. But I thought it interesting to note that Syria has a few caches, even though it bans the use of gpsr. As the United States state department warns, "It is also illegal in Syria to possess specific-use electronic devices including GPS, short-wave or handheld radio equipment, or similar devices."

 

Apparently caches placed by foreigners in a country banning gps devices is not a bar in and of itself.

 

I bet this is one of the few times someone would favor a Iphone or Android...

 

Reading further it says, "Both men and women should always carry a cell phone, if possible." So cell phones are allowed... You could easily get away with using a GPS...

Link to comment

I thnk you tried to create a Virtual cache in a country. After being informed that you couldn't create a Virtual cache and have it listed on this geocaching.com site you then looked for a way around that.

 

Did you then go back to the country and place a nano? It's not good enough to say "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." If there are two people to maintain the cache they should be able to replace a missing nano for you. Also, one of the requirements for listing a cache on this site is that a GPS must be used to get the co-ordinates and also a GPS should be necessary for the search for the cache. Telling people that you will accept photographs instead is a Virtual cache by another name.

 

Apparently you also edited the cache page after approval by the reviewer - presumable you thought it would not be noticed and you'd get away with that sleight of hand? :)

 

It makes no difference which country it is - You tried to create a cache that was against the listing requirements of this site. Don't try to make some spurious political issue out of it.

 

No doubt you could get your cache listed on some other geocaching listing site which has different guidelines.

 

MrsB

I've marked coords on cache hides without a GPSr before. I've used Google Earth. It is essential a coords checker.

Edited by TerraViators
Link to comment

I thnk you tried to create a Virtual cache in a country. After being informed that you couldn't create a Virtual cache and have it listed on this geocaching.com site you then looked for a way around that.

 

Did you then go back to the country and place a nano? It's not good enough to say "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." If there are two people to maintain the cache they should be able to replace a missing nano for you. Also, one of the requirements for listing a cache on this site is that a GPS must be used to get the co-ordinates and also a GPS should be necessary for the search for the cache. Telling people that you will accept photographs instead is a Virtual cache by another name.

 

Apparently you also edited the cache page after approval by the reviewer - presumable you thought it would not be noticed and you'd get away with that sleight of hand? :)

 

It makes no difference which country it is - You tried to create a cache that was against the listing requirements of this site. Don't try to make some spurious political issue out of it.

 

No doubt you could get your cache listed on some other geocaching listing site which has different guidelines.

 

MrsB

I've marked coords on cache hides withough a GPSr before. I've used Google Earth. It is essential a coords checker.

 

You really are missing the point of all of this. First, the cache in question was originally a virtual and was not allowed. Then the OP listed it as a micro with some silly "alternate logging condition" in an attempt to get around the guidelines. I am thoroughly convinced that there never was a cache there.

 

As for the caches you have listed that you didn't use a gps to find the coordinates for, they technically violate the guidelines. In many places the coordinates on online mapping services are off by a considerable amount.

Link to comment

I bet this is one of the few times someone would favor a Iphone or Android...

 

Reading further it says, "Both men and women should always carry a cell phone, if possible." So cell phones are allowed... You could easily get away with using a GPS...

 

Cell phones owned or sold by Syrians have the gps disabled, but foreigners have been known to use them. It seems to be easier to get away with gps use there than in North Korea where the Dear Leader is in complete control. The only point is that Groundspeak will list caches in a country where gps use is banned, so that particular factor would not bar the cache discussed here.

 

Of course, as far as I can figure out, it might be rather foolhardy to look for a cache, even if you could distract your North Korean guide. It might be a hard one to explain.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

I thnk you tried to create a Virtual cache in a country. After being informed that you couldn't create a Virtual cache and have it listed on this geocaching.com site you then looked for a way around that.

 

Did you then go back to the country and place a nano? It's not good enough to say "I will not be wondering, if the container is lost." If there are two people to maintain the cache they should be able to replace a missing nano for you. Also, one of the requirements for listing a cache on this site is that a GPS must be used to get the co-ordinates and also a GPS should be necessary for the search for the cache. Telling people that you will accept photographs instead is a Virtual cache by another name.

 

Apparently you also edited the cache page after approval by the reviewer - presumable you thought it would not be noticed and you'd get away with that sleight of hand? :)

 

It makes no difference which country it is - You tried to create a cache that was against the listing requirements of this site. Don't try to make some spurious political issue out of it.

 

No doubt you could get your cache listed on some other geocaching listing site which has different guidelines.

 

MrsB

I've marked coords on cache hides withough a GPSr before. I've used Google Earth. It is essential a coords checker.

 

You really are missing the point of all of this. First, the cache in question was originally a virtual and was not allowed. Then the OP listed it as a micro with some silly "alternate logging condition" in an attempt to get around the guidelines. I am thoroughly convinced that there never was a cache there.

 

As for the caches you have listed that you didn't use a gps to find the coordinates for, they technically violate the guidelines. In many places the coordinates on online mapping services are off by a considerable amount.

They've never been up to this point for me, but I get the point.

Link to comment
As for the caches you have listed that you didn't use a gps to find the coordinates for, they technically violate the guidelines. In many places the coordinates on online mapping services are off by a considerable amount.

I can't speak for other areas, but in New York City the combination of 1) horrendous GPSr reception and interference thanks to the man-made canyons, and 2) amazingly detailed, high-resolution satellite imagery for this area, leads to far superior results with Google / Bing maps vs. taking a reading with a handheld unit.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...