Guidelines Reorganization

[+paleolith]

Overall I think the reorganization is a big improvement, though perhaps they should add an explanation of "p-word". It's now a lot easier to get an overview/summary and drill down. No more one-big-long-page. Studies show that breaking it up makes it more accessible -- this is not just our hypotheses.

 

MissJenn: there are a number of ways of shielding email feedback from spambots and still having it on wab pages. I use the Hivelogic method -- it's so simple that even a one-person web site can use it without undue burden. There are stronger methods which would require a few hours of work. Your posted reason on this does not hold water. I hope that you will take another look at this.

 

I raised a support issue fairly recently about challenge cache stuff being split between guidelines and KB. The reorg handles this, and my issue was closed. Unfortunately I had also pointed out that challenge caches were (incorrectly I believe) described as requiring the actual coordinates to be posted, and this was not addressed.

 

However, that's just part of a larger issue. How should I now provide feedback on specific pages, for non-controversial issues? There's no feedback link on the KB pages. Posting for discussion here does not necessarily get GS attention -- that's why feedback is now separate. If I open a new support ticket for each page for which I want to suggest clarifications, that looks like a mess to me. But if I open one ticket for a lot of suggestions, then it will probably be closed when some of them are implemented, just as the ticket I mentioned above was closed when 1 of 2 points was handled.

 

And yes, I'm talking about clarifications, corrections, minor stuff -- not policy changes. Whether (mentioned above) the final of a challenge can be a multi (currently excluded but I believe not intentionally). Repeated misspelling of an important word on the "containers" page. Things like that.

 

Edward

[+palmetto]

Container sizes are found on the cache report form, in the pull down box for cache size selection.

 

I'll inquire as to whether this should be added as a section in the Container KB article now.

[+Lil Devil]

... I had also pointed out that challenge caches were (incorrectly I believe) described as requiring the actual coordinates to be posted, and this was not addressed.

It was not addressed because challenge caches DO require the actual coords to be posted, with the exception of DeLorme Challenges. Since pretty much every state already has a DeLorme, that means all other new challenges require the coords be posted. So the guidelines are correct.

[+paleolith]

It was not addressed because challenge caches DO require the actual coords to be posted, with the exception of DeLorme Challenges. Since pretty much every state already has a DeLorme, that means all other new challenges require the coords be posted. So the guidelines are correct.

DeLorme challenges are allowed a stronger exception: they are allowed to use the "mail owner for coords after you qualify" method. There are challenge caches where the final itself is a puzzle, offset, or multi. In these cases, the actual cache coordinates are not posted, just as they are not posted for ordinary puzzles or multis. There is no indication that this was supposed to change.

 

Edward

[+niraD]

Container sizes are found on the cache report form, in the pull down box for cache size selection.

The sizes as described in the cache report form are:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

The sizes as described in the guidelines before the change are:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

I think information was lost during the migration.

 

It would be nice to have more information available in the cache report form. It would be nice to have a clearer explanation on the containers page (i.e., not buried in a paragraph about Lock N Lock containers, and covering all sizes). But I think someone should be able to go to the guidelines, search the page for "size", and find information about the range of volumes appropriate for each size.

[+L0ne.R]

Container sizes are found on the cache report form, in the pull down box for cache size selection.

The sizes as described in the cache report form are:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

The sizes as described in the guidelines before the change are:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

I think information was lost during the migration.

 

It would be nice to have more information available in the cache report form. It would be nice to have a clearer explanation on the containers page (i.e., not buried in a paragraph about Lock N Lock containers, and covering all sizes). But I think someone should be able to go to the guidelines, search the page for "size", and find information about the range of volumes appropriate for each size.

 

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

 

I can see new COs thinking that their matchstick or aspirin or key container isn't a 35mm film canister and because it's slightly taller then a film canister it must be a small. The volume and the part about a micro having typically enough room for only a logbook and not intended to contain trade items, is important information. I can see more micros unintentionally listed as small. Also the current definition doesn't say anything smaller then a film canister is also a micro, more people may end up listing their nanos as 'unknown' or 'not listed' because their blinkie isn't a film canister.

[cezanne]

As Keystone said, there is no intention to introduce any changes to the guidelines at this specific point.

 

Are you sure?

 

From my point of view there is a quite a difference between

 

By submitting a cache listing' date=' you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

[/quote']

 

and

 

Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache' date=' whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

In the case of public property, contact the agency or association that manages the land to obtain permission. The U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, prohibit geocaching on lands they manage. Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on a particular public property, ensure that the management agency is aware of your intended placement and secure their permission before placing the cache.

[/quote']

 

I cannot imagine that there exists a single country in Europe (including France where you are reviewing) where the new guideline version is realistic. I do not even believe that your own caches have been hidden conforming to the new version.

 

Cezanne

[Keystone]

There's no substantive change. You quoted an isolated excerpt from the old guidelines and compared it to the consolidated, unified paragraph found in the new guidelines. The thing is, all of the concepts found in the long paragraph were also found in the old guidelines, scattered around and perhaps using slightly different words. I think collecting related concepts into a single discussion is a nice improvement.

[cezanne]

There's no substantive change. You quoted an isolated excerpt from the old guidelines and compared it to the consolidated, unified paragraph found in the new guidelines. The thing is, all of the concepts found in the long paragraph were also found in the old guidelines, scattered around and perhaps using slightly different words. I think collecting related concepts into a single discussion is a nice improvement.

 

I agree that I quoted only parts. The reason was I wanted to restrict the length of my posting. I have read the full version of the old guidelines and have even looked up the old version before writing my posting.

 

Can you please show me where for example in the old guideline one was explicitely requested to obtain permission for caches on public ground (apart from the case where local laws might induce this)? The new version not only explicitely states that requirement, but even reinforces it by stating that a permission is necessary even in case when one knows that caches are allowed at this location.

 

Concepts like land managers do only exist in some parts of the world. The new version of the guidelines in my view turns about 95% of the caches in Europe into caches which are not conforming to the guidelines.

 

BTW: It is not just me wondering about this issue. I became aware of it due to discussions in other geocaching forums. I also read a statement of a gc.com reviewer in which it was said that it is completely unrealistic to expect a permission for caches on public ground in his reviewing area (and I agree with him).

 

Cezanne

Edited February 17, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Container sizes are found on the cache report form, in the pull down box for cache size selection.

The sizes as described in the cache report form are:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

The sizes as described in the guidelines before the change are:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

I think information was lost during the migration.

 

Have a look at this

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=75

This adds to the confusion. There sizes from 0.7 l to 3.5l are regarded as traditional and above from 3.5 l as large. This is different in defining small, regular and large to what is written above.

 

Cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

Container sizes are found on the cache report form, in the pull down box for cache size selection.

The sizes as described in the cache report form are:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

The sizes as described in the guidelines before the change are:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

I think information was lost during the migration.

 

Have a look at this

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=75

This adds to the confusion. There sizes from 0.7 l to 3.5l are regarded as traditional and above from 3.5 l as large. This is different in defining small, regular and large to what is written above.

 

Cezanne

 

I read that as more of a suggestion specific to "p-ware" containers:

 

We would suggest that volumes up to 0.7 liters be listed as "Small", from 0.7 to 3.5 liters "Regular", and above 3.5 liters "Large".

[cezanne]

I read that as more of a suggestion specific to "p-ware" containers:

 

Maybe. On the other hand, that's the majority of containers in Europe with respect to non-micros (if lock and lock are included). Ammo boxes are not that frequent.

 

In any case, someone on the German speaking forum interpreted it as change of the size guidelines.

 

I am bit tired of the changes as to what is regarded as small and what as regular. When I started off,

small did not exist. Wehen it was introduced, regular was still the correct size for containers of 1l, later the

limit was changed to 1l and if now the suggestion is 0.7l, it get's confusing. I do not have the time to check

every six months whether the size suggestions are still the same.

 

The 3.5l limit for large better conforms to the European feeling of large. Caches that are large in terms of the 5 gallon limit,

do hardly exist. Note that regardless of the material, there is a huge gap between 3.5l and 20l. So why should a 3.5l p-ware container

be classified as large and a 19l bucket as regular? Maybe the issue is that a French reviewer has written the text and in France

3.5l is an untypically large size (like in my home country)?

 

In any case, a clarification would be nice, and some document pointing out where something of importance has been changed.

I do not want to read the whole restructured guidelines again from the beginning.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 17, 2011 by cezanne

[+sTeamTraen]

The 3.5l limit for large better conforms to the European feeling of large. Caches that are large in terms of the 5 gallon limit,

do hardly exist. Note that regardless of the material, there is a huge gap between 3.5l and 20l. So why should a 3.5l p-ware container

be classified as large and a 19l bucket as regular? Maybe the issue is that a French reviewer has written the text and in France

3.5l is an untypically large size (like in my home country)?

I think that you're reading a little too much into this. I wrote the original version of that article 3 or 4 years ago as a way to get some content on this subject into the KB, and it hasn't changed very much since. It could well be that someone needs to take a high-level view of everything that's written about container sizes. But since most people don't read any of it, and the game seems to manage quite well anyway, it's not all that important.

 

The "0.7 to 3.5 litre" thing is just based on my personal take on cache sizes. But I can express it in other ways. If you can't get a TB tag into it, it's probably a Micro. If you can get three average-sized TBs in there, it's Regular. If you can get a large adult's shoe (mine are 46 European, 12 US) in it, it's getting close to Large (this excludes a .50 cal ammo box, which for me is at the top end of Regular). But it's all subjective.

[cezanne]

I It could well be that someone needs to take a high-level view of everything that's written about container sizes. But since most people don't read any of it, and the game seems to manage quite well anyway, it's not all that important.

 

It appears that many people read it. Moreover, I already often have come across logs in Austria and Germany where someone complained that a certain cache is not a small/regular/large because the limits mentioned in the old guidelines were not strictly obeyed.

I had reclassified some of regulars as smalls due to the 1l limit that some take very strict. These containers would have allowed for three average size TBs.

 

But it's all subjective.

 

With the formulation of the old guidelines and the text given in the submission form, most cachers were not regarding this issue as that subjective. Of course, there will always be subjective components, but as I said the gap between 3.5l and 20l is very huge.

If the limits are not strict, why does the submission form then mention e.g. 20l as lower limit for large?

 

I agree that something like geocaching does not need strict rules except for certain special aspects. If it were me, I would however then refrain from coming up with rigid classifications at all. Somehow giving upper and lower bounds does not fit for me to subjetivity.

But probably once again my thinking is too formal and logically-oriented to understand this type of approach.

 

In any case, I found out that I liked the old version of the new guidelines much more - the new one might be better for beginners, but for me the old one was much more convenient. (E.g. when checking something like the details about container sizes, I do not want to read an explanation about the type of cache containers that are available. I already do know that. The knowledge book version more reads like a guide for beginners for me.)

 

Cezanne

[+Lil Devil]

I can remember a time when the guidelines (and the website) did not give any volume sizes. Just rough examples of containers. Then people complained and said they wanted specific limits. Now we have them, and you are asking for them to be removed.

 

It's obviously impossible to make everyone happy.

[cezanne]

I can remember a time when the guidelines (and the website) did not give any volume sizes. Just rough examples of containers. Then people complained and said they wanted specific limits. Now we have them, and you are asking for them to be removed.

 

You apparently misunderstood me - I can live with and without prescribed bounds for the sizes (I also know about the old times as I started geocaching in 2002). My point was just that if there are precise upper and lower bounds, they should be the same throughout the gc.com website or at least similar.

The difference between large starts at 3.5l (knowledge book) and 20l (old guidelines and cache report form) is too large in my eyes and will confuse people. Don't you agree?

The argument that it does not matter as hardly anyone reads the knowledge book info is perhaps also not the best argument as each hider acknowleges that he has read the guidelines.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

I can remember a time when the guidelines (and the website) did not give any volume sizes. Just rough examples of containers. Then people complained and said they wanted specific limits. Now we have them, and you are asking for them to be removed.

 

You apparently misunderstood me - I can live with and without prescribed bounds for the sizes (I also know about the old times as I started geocaching in 2002). My point was just that if there are precise upper and lower bounds, they should be the same throughout the gc.com website or at least similar.

The difference between large starts at 3.5l (knowledge book) and 20l (old guidelines and cache report form) is too large in my eyes and will confuse people. Don't you agree?

The argument that it does not matter as hardly anyone reads the knowledge book info is perhaps also not the best argument as each hider acknowledges that he has read the guidelines.

 

Cezanne

 

The micro size definition matters very much to me. I filter them out.

 

If people start calling them small and there's no guideline to point to about what a micro vs a small is, then the filtering becomes useless.

 

I'm going to get more frustrated when I spend an hour driving to a small cache only to find a 40 tablet aspirin bottle in the nook of a tree in the middle of a forest. When this happened (a micro listed as a small) I would quote the guidelines about micro size vs small size in my online log. Now when it happens a CO can say, it's an aspirin bottle not a film canister, so it's a small.

 

Maybe, in the 'Report a new Cache' 'Cache Size' drop menu, instead of 'Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister) it should say..."log only, no trinkets". Although I'm favouring the TB idea to distinguish micro from small. It's a good visual representation:

 

Micro (a travelbug will not fit)

Small (1-2 average size travelbugs will fit)