Movie locations - "commercial venture"

[Deceangi]

Although we can clearly work around these restrictions, the point is; why do we have to, when they make life slightly more difficult for the cache owner, the cache seeker, the reviewer and ultimately Groundspeak? No-one benefits, and the reviewer comes over as too picky when this is given as a reason to not publish.

 

A film location is something of interest, suitable inspiration for a cache placement. Although you can word it so that we can't actually tell what film the location is relevant to, that rather loses the point. If you mention that there is a pub nearby which could be handy for a spot of lunch but then don't say the name of the pub, that looks like a mistake and could cause some irritation and confusion.

 

If I was writing a walking guide to the Cotswolds or somewhere, I'd be expected to name the pubs along the route (whether or not they pay for a mention). If a current film was shot at a location on the way, I'd be expected to name it.

I'd be astonished if the publisher asked me to reword the route description so that the pubs and films weren't mentioned by name, and would quickly look for a different publisher.

Just what I was going to say, why can't we call a spade a spade? What is the point in describing it as a wooden handeled tool with a metal blade used for digging ?

 

I think that there are a few Groundspeak representatives that need to get a wee dose of common sence

 

As you appear to have a issue with the way I review caches (as the Reviewer involved in the OP's cache) please take your issue directly to Groundspeak. If your issue is solely with the Commercial Guidelines, then please use User Voice (accessed from the Feedback Tab on any cache page) with a request that Groundspeak reviews that Guideline.

 

But please do not insult me by using

I think that there are a few Groundspeak representatives that need to get a wee dose of common sence

 

FYI I do try to apply as much of a relaxed approach to the Commercial Guidelines as possible, but have to take a point over which I will not cross. The Page was heavily about a Film released in 2010 (it had to be to qualify for the 20011 Oscars) which just won I believe 4 Oscars (which happens to possibly be the highest awards for the Film Industry). As such I perceived the cache page to be of commercial content.

 

Also FYI a Spade is a Generic name, and as such is not commercial. However if you stated a Spear and Jackson Spade, you'd be referring to a specific commercial product. At the end of the day it's all about perceived content!

 

Deci

[+Malpas Wanderer]

 

FYI I do try to apply as much of a relaxed approach to the Commercial Guidelines as possible, but have to take a point over which I will not cross. The Page was heavily about a Film released in 2010 (it had to be to qualify for the 20011 Oscars) which just won I believe 4 Oscars (which happens to possibly be the highest awards for the Film Industry). As such I perceived the cache page to be of commercial content.

 

Also FYI a Spade is a Generic name, and as such is not commercial. However if you stated a Spear and Jackson Spade, you'd be referring to a specific commercial product. At the end of the day it's all about perceived content!

 

Deci

 

Thanks Dave for coming back in and stating your reasoning.

 

I still think current topics should not be taboo when mentioned in a modest way. You obviously judged this as greater than modest mention.

 

Perhaps all parties being agreeable it would be beneficial to provide links to the original submitted page and one constructed that would easily pass review. Or permanently place on the UK resources pages.

 

I'm sure most of us appreciate the sterling work the reviewers do for our behalf, and I'm certainly all for resolution before such actions as Groundspeak appeal process

 

Lets hope for a good caching year where we can all work harmoniously together.

 

Edited to say: I guess the original page would be to much advertising too, so perhaps a similar theme.

 

Though it would be nice to be able to judge the original page.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Malpas Wanderer

[+The Hornet]

 

But please do not insult me by using

I think that there are a few Groundspeak representatives that need to get a wee dose of common sence

 

Dave don't lose your sense of proportion! When we were part of the same reviewing team we took pride in applying common sense. It was the very fact that we eventually were not allowed to use common sense that led to what happened. Do not take umbrage when someone politely and gently suggests it could be applied here as an insult!

 

Peter

[+riviouveur]

I found this fascinating. I understood the basic "can't mention the name of a business or commercial product" which is in the guidelines. But I had no idea there was this level of further classification underneath, and that mentioning something recent (e.g. Chocolate Meringue Narthex's first album release in nearly 40 years) causes a specific problem, while older material might not.

 

Though I do see the logic in trying to separate "pop culture" from commercialism.

I think that you've understood the issue very well. Again, it comes back to the question of zooming in on the coastline. Except that there isn't formally a level of further classification; there's just the collective experience of the reviewers as a group as to what is "pop culture" and what is "commercial". As others have pointed out in this thread, it's often possible to steer clear of the issue altogether by thinking a little about the wording.

 

This kind of "zooming in until it goes blurry" discussion takes place in real life all the time, by the way. It's just that most of us don't see it because we don't retain lawyers on a regular basis to argue about things like whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit. When we hear about those cases, we smile, and think "how ridiculous", but if you're trying to sell Jaffa cakes and the government wants to put 20% VAT on them, it's no laughing matter.

 

Should we consider pub names as part of our "Pop Culture". Oh, that's another discussion...

Just a personal opinion, since I don't review in the UK, but... thirty years ago, when I lived in the UK, I would have placed pubs on the "pop culture" side, no questions asked. But today, with most pubs in the hands of companies who don't brew beer, who determine whether there will be one slice of lemon or two on top of your portion-controlled fillet of fish, and who chose the name of the pub after extensive focus group trials involving seeing how many 18-25 year olds smirked at it - "it says Firkin, tee-hee" - I think that that age has long since gone (and I was probably deluding myself in 1981, too - anyone remember Berni Inns?).

Edited March 3, 2011 by riviouveur

[+redsox_mark]

Thanks riviouveur for your insight here. I do remember Berni Inns...

[+Happy Humphrey]

As you appear to have a issue with the way I review caches (as the Reviewer involved in the OP's cache) please take your issue directly to Groundspeak. If your issue is solely with the Commercial Guidelines, then please use User Voice (accessed from the Feedback Tab on any cache page) with a request that Groundspeak reviews that Guideline.

I don't think that people are seriously "taking issue" with any reviewer, as (I hope) they understand that reviewers are obliged to enforce guidelines. But as this is perhaps a rather woolly guideline, it's surely no surprise that there is a debate about where the limits are in the UK context, and how it affects cache listings. I'm not sure how much input into this guideline came from the UK, as it's not immediately obvious where the limits are in the UK situation (or why it was introduced).

 

(Edit) here's the guideline...

Commercial caches are disallowed. As a general rule, reviewers will not publish cache pages that seem commercial. A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

1. It requires the finder to go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

2. It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

3. It contains links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political agendas or social agendas.

4. It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

5. The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page.

6. On very rare occasions, Groundspeak makes an exception for a commercial cache. Arrangements are made before placement. If your cache is commercial in any way, please contact Groundspeak for clarification about how to comply with cache listing guidelines.

It looks like number 5 is the guideline causing the confusion: and no wonder, as it leaves much room for interpretation.

 

If a couple of reviewers find it hard work to make the justification for the guideline clear, then it seems to me that it's flawed in some way. It should be dead easy to justify.

If we discuss the subject here (which seems to be a reasonable course of action), we'll most likely have some disagreements. As long as all remains civil (which it seems to have done), then that all helps us to explore the reasons for the commercial guidelines and answer any concerns. Finally, some of us may want to take it direct to Groundspeak. But not until after debating it thoroughly.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[dodgydaved]

In a similar vein:

 

"Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda."

 

Now look at GC2P6V2.

 

I am not for one minute suggesting that the CO is making a political comment here - I am almost certain that he isn't, only looking for verisimilitude in a cache description - but then sending a cacher to a film location and mentioning the film, or telling someone about the "Pig and Whistle" is just as unlikely to be a deliberate commercial ploy.

 

Again, this is not a criticism of a reviewer - heaven forbid I am well aware of the pressures of that particular reponsibility - but of the guidelines, and the interpretations of them, that seem to force an artificial stricture on the content of the cache page.

[+drdick&vick]

Surely the reproduction of the Daily Mail header is outright advertising of a commercial product even if the cache owner did not mean it to be.

[+MartyBartfast]

Surely the reproduction of the Daily Mail header is outright advertising of a commercial product even if the cache owner did not mean it to be.

 

It's not the Daily Mail header, admittedly it has the word Daily in it (but not Mail), and it's in a similar (though not identical) font, and it has a shield but it's nothing like the one on the Mail.

 

It's taken from a 'print your own front page' website, and it seems it was them who put the Cameron story on the front page:

 

See here

Edited March 3, 2011 by MartyBartfast

[+drsolly]

anyone remember Berni Inns?).

 

I went to a berni Inn in Japan once, taken there by my hosts who thought they were taking me to a "Western Pub". The beer was A) Red Barrel off.

[team tisri]

But if it makes things easier, let's replace "football ground" with "pub" and "handing out flyers for a local business" with "putting up posters for a special offer at Carphone Warehouse". I'm sure that holes can be picked in this analogy too, but it's a reasonably simple general principle: don't use someone else's resources, without their permission, to advertise another business. Where it gets complex is deciding what constitutes advertising; Groundspeak is fairly conservative about that, but that's their choice to make.

 

If someone walked into the pub and just decided, without permission, to start putting up posters advertising some commercial venture then the landlord would probably ask them to stop. But what about the number of times people go to the pub, meet, talk about their lives, including the great new mobile deal they got from Carphone Warehouse (other mobile phone suppliers are available), comment on the food they just ate and how the food at the Red Lion is better and so on, all within the construct of a normal social interaction.

 

I can see the argument about commercial caches being a slippery slope but I also reckon it should be easy enough to tell the difference between a cache that mentions a pub in the context of it being a facility around a circuit (in the same way one might mention a campsite or a public toilet on a long walk), and a cache placed with little intent other than to drive business to a commercial venture. Otherwise if a cache is placed 100 yards from the pub and is given the "drink available nearby" attribute will that count as encouraging people to visit the pub? Isn't the text just quantifying the use of the attributes, in the same way some caches say things like "this is on a footpath, so no bikes please" while also bearing the "No Bikes" attribute?

[+riviouveur]

I can see the argument about commercial caches being a slippery slope but I also reckon it should be easy enough to tell the difference between a cache that mentions a pub in the context of it being a facility around a circuit (in the same way one might mention a campsite or a public toilet on a long walk), and a cache placed with little intent other than to drive business to a commercial venture.

Before I became a reviewer, I would have agreed with you. Then I discovered just how far it's possible to "zoom in". If the reviewers were like lawyers talking about Jaffa cakes, billing Groundspeak and the cache owner for our time by the hour, we'd all be getting very rich on the back of this kind of discussion. I would not have believed the amount of discussion which goes into these kind of issues. If anyone thinks that the reviewers just flip a coin in this kind of case, please believe me: we don't.

 

Otherwise if a cache is placed 100 yards from the pub and is given the "drink available nearby" attribute will that count as encouraging people to visit the pub? Isn't the text just quantifying the use of the attributes, in the same way some caches say things like "this is on a footpath, so no bikes please" while also bearing the "No Bikes" attribute?

Well, I think it's probably reasonable to presume that Groundspeak doesn't think that using an attribute is excessive encouragement to people to use the pub, otherwise they wouldn't have provided the attribute for you to select. One of the points of the attributes is to provide a simple, scalable(*) way to allow you to specify that there is food, parking, etc nearby, without having to mention the name of the provider. (Incidentally, the specific "Drinking water available" attribute is for public drinking fountains; I think that "being able to buy something to drink" is covered by "Fuel Available" and "Food Available".)

 

(*) Scalable, in this context, means "it still works if everybody does it". That's important when you've got over a million examples. To continue with the previous example, if everyone tried to put up posters in their local pub, things would get out of hand pretty quickly. We instinctively understand that sort of thing when we're talking about real life, but the Internet sometimes gives the impression that anything is possible on any scale, although that isn't actually the case. Perhaps in 30 or 40 years, when we've all got used to the implicit sociology and economics of the online world, this will be more widely understood; but at the moment, companies and individuals who do understand this and attempt to impose restrictions to protect their interests can sometimes be seen to be acting unreasonably. When you factor in the ability for any single case to be brought to the attention of thousands or millions of people in a few minutes, we're in for a bumpy ride while everyone gets truly (culturally) used to this new world.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think that the problem stems from the wording of the guideline, which invites interpretation.

A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics:

5. The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page.

This wording can't be taken literally, as it would invite ridicule.

An iphone is a "commercial product", and "Park Farm" is a business, but it would clearly be crazy if you couldn't say in the cache description "Your GPSr (or iphone) will take you past Park Farm, where you should look for the footpath sign.".

 

So it's the principle of what's behind the guideline that has to be understood before a sensible interpretation can be made.

 

In my opinion, the whole idea of a "commercial cache" is that bringing visitors to the cache itself is less important than bringing them to some sort of commercial venue, or promoting some enterprise, which might gain from the visit. So that's the test.

 

Applying it in the real world; is a cache called "The King's Speech", with the film as a theme, set up with the intention of promoting this film? Well, clearly the name of the film is likely to be mentioned. Does the description infer that there is some connection between the film and the location of the cache? Yes; it's a location seen in the film. Is the film mentioned in order to direct people to go and see it, or buy merchandise? No, it's just mentioned in the context of the cache location. Seems OK then.

 

The same test with a pub. Say a cache description includes "The Horse and Hounds is the best local pub in my opinion, and serves decent food". All the reviewer has to do is judge that the mention of a business is just meant to assist the visiting cacher, not to use the cache as a means to bring in trade (even though that might be a side effect). So this looks fine, and it wouldn't be sensible to require the pub name to be deleted (you'd end up with a big debate on the forums!).

Obviously, if the cache was called "Horse and Hounds", and the description said "Once you've found the cache, take advantage of the pub's excellent food and hospitality", the balance is tipped in favour of this cache being more about the pub's trade than the geocache. So it'd have to be changed.

[team tisri]

I can see the argument about commercial caches being a slippery slope but I also reckon it should be easy enough to tell the difference between a cache that mentions a pub in the context of it being a facility around a circuit (in the same way one might mention a campsite or a public toilet on a long walk), and a cache placed with little intent other than to drive business to a commercial venture.

Before I became a reviewer, I would have agreed with you. Then I discovered just how far it's possible to "zoom in". If the reviewers were like lawyers talking about Jaffa cakes, billing Groundspeak and the cache owner for our time by the hour, we'd all be getting very rich on the back of this kind of discussion. I would not have believed the amount of discussion which goes into these kind of issues. If anyone thinks that the reviewers just flip a coin in this kind of case, please believe me: we don't.

 

Having never been a reviewer I obviously can't make comment what you see behind the scenes so to speak. All I would say is that if the odd cache does turn up that slips through the net and is placed with commercial intent, does it really matter? If the guidelines are that outright commercial caches aren't allowed, and a pub landlord does manage to slip in a cache right outside the front door (with the landlord's permission, of course) and the cache is conveniently placed right next to the specials board, it will soon be reported as being brazenly commercial and can be archived.

 

Otherwise if a cache is placed 100 yards from the pub and is given the "drink available nearby" attribute will that count as encouraging people to visit the pub? Isn't the text just quantifying the use of the attributes, in the same way some caches say things like "this is on a footpath, so no bikes please" while also bearing the "No Bikes" attribute?

Well, I think it's probably reasonable to presume that Groundspeak doesn't think that using an attribute is excessive encouragement to people to use the pub, otherwise they wouldn't have provided the attribute for you to select. One of the points of the attributes is to provide a simple, scalable(*) way to allow you to specify that there is food, parking, etc nearby, without having to mention the name of the provider. (Incidentally, the specific "Drinking water available" attribute is for public drinking fountains; I think that "being able to buy something to drink" is covered by "Fuel Available" and "Food Available".)

 

(*) Scalable, in this context, means "it still works if everybody does it". That's important when you've got over a million examples. To continue with the previous example, if everyone tried to put up posters in their local pub, things would get out of hand pretty quickly. We instinctively understand that sort of thing when we're talking about real life, but the Internet sometimes gives the impression that anything is possible on any scale, although that isn't actually the case. Perhaps in 30 or 40 years, when we've all got used to the implicit sociology and economics of the online world, this will be more widely understood; but at the moment, companies and individuals who do understand this and attempt to impose restrictions to protect their interests can sometimes be seen to be acting unreasonably. When you factor in the ability for any single case to be brought to the attention of thousands or millions of people in a few minutes, we're in for a bumpy ride while everyone gets truly (culturally) used to this new world.

 

Groundspeak doing it does imply they don't see a problem, my point was one of an apparent inconsistency rather than permission. It does seem like a cache that says "take the footpath that runs beside the Red Lion" falls foul of the commercial guideline but a cache placed in the Red Lion car park hidden under the specials board that didn't mention the pub (perhaps the only one for some distance) but did carry the "food/drink available nearby" would not.

 

I agree with your comment about being scalable and the eternal problem of "what if everybody does it". At the same time I think we have to be careful with having too many guidelines applied too broadly because otherwise sooner or later any text over and above a description of the cache in the most generic terms imaginable falls foul of something. If "take the path beside the Red Lion" is considered "commercial", is it permitted to describe the cache as a "350ml Tupperware container"? Is it permitted to name a specific church in a cache - if the very mention of a pub or other venue is considered to be some form of endorsement is mention of "St John The Baptist Church" considered an endorsement of that particular place of worship?

 

Since caching is largely about finding places of interest I would have thought that a cache is enhanced by knowing a little about the reason the place is of interest. We could make all sorts of oblique comments along the lines of "there is a pub within half a mile of here which has been standing since 1378" or "a well known film had a scene or two shot here" but doesn't it add a little more to the cache to say a little more explicitly, like "at the end of the road you'll see the Ring of Bells, a pub that has served this little village for over 600 years"?

[+Oofy]

Well that was all rather livelier than I'd expected. When I wrote the initial post, I was only trying to get a clearer idea of what more experienced cachers than me felt was acceptable and wasn't. I certainly hadn't anticipated stirring up such a hornet's nest. In fact, I'm not sure I even thought of placing the cache until the Latitude 47 email arrived just a few days ago about a MP and Holy Grail cache.

 

I apologise to Desi if I caused him grief. Not my intention at all. Even as a relatively new cacher, I am mightily impressed by the work of the reviewers and I'm grateful to him and riviouveur for setting me straight and helping me get my head around what to do this time and in future. I'd hate them to think we didn't appreciate their hard work.

 

A few of you asked me to say what the cache is when activated. It's GC2PH7E, now called "Lionel and Bertie". Congrats to LoonyLondo for a 45th FTF! As I think I said in an earlier post, it's not the most exciting cache ever; it's there because of the location.

 

Somewhat bizarrely, doing a few London caches today while cycling from work, I met one of the other posters on this topic.

 

Thanks for all your help. I still have lots of questions about other things but maybe I'll keep my head down for a while.

 

Is there anything contentious about asking whether GC numbers are entirely random or not? Merely curious.

[+Simply Paul]

33 Portland Place- Also a shooting location for many 'specialist' films (I can confirm those reports), The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (also starring Geoffrey Rush) a Speckled Hen Dave Ident (with the fox), the 2009 Skin Two Rubber Ball, a million photo shoots, 'parties' and the Amy Winehouse Rehab video. A colourful history, quite apart from its King's Speech connection, with the British tax payer picking up the tab to replace it - some time ago... The link is to a Wikipedia page but may not be suitible for work

 

A clicky link to the cache for those who like them

Edited March 4, 2011 by Simply Paul

[+riviouveur]

Is there anything contentious about asking whether GC numbers are entirely random or not? Merely curious.

GC numbers ("GC Codes", as they're officially called) are assigned in sequence. GC2PH7E will be followed by GC2PH7F, etc. The cycle uses 10 digits, 0 through 9, and 21 letters, A-Z except for I, O, U, S, and L (poor Louis, he'll never be a cache name).

[+The Blue Quasar]

I'm only using this post because it touched on many of the differences from my viewpoint. I did read the whole thread, and being honest I thought Happy Humphrey expressed his opinions quite eloquently and intelligently. But I respectfully disagree on several points. In the interest of disclosure I'm also a reviewer but way over in Canada under the account "CacheDrone". I was not asked to contribute by anyone nor even directed to this thread by anyone.

 

I think that the problem stems from the wording of the guideline, which invites interpretation.

A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics:

5. The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page.

This wording can't be taken literally, as it would invite ridicule.

An iphone is a "commercial product", and "Park Farm" is a business, but it would clearly be crazy if you couldn't say in the cache description "Your GPSr (or iphone) will take you past Park Farm, where you should look for the footpath sign.".

 

So it's the principle of what's behind the guideline that has to be understood before a sensible interpretation can be made.

 

I do take it literally 100% of the time and for me it has rarely invited ridicule. For what little it is worth, I make every effort to ensure that all listings that I publish are completely free of any commercial reference. That includes having no businesses by name or inference, no products, or anything in those general areas. Likely some have slipped through, it happens. But to say that it would be "clearly crazy" would be inaccurate in my eyes. I see no reason for the suggested line quoted above to be in a listing. It can be written in such a way to convey the information without any mention of Park Farm.

 

In my opinion, the whole idea of a "commercial cache" is that bringing visitors to the cache itself is less important than bringing them to some sort of commercial venue, or promoting some enterprise, which might gain from the visit. So that's the test.

 

No, that isn't the test. A commercial cache is what you quoted from the guidelines. What you have described sounds like some form of gray area where content about caching has been suspended in favour of off-topic content unrelated to caching as alluded to below.

 

Applying it in the real world; is a cache called "The King's Speech", with the film as a theme, set up with the intention of promoting this film? Well, clearly the name of the film is likely to be mentioned. Does the description infer that there is some connection between the film and the location of the cache? Yes; it's a location seen in the film. Is the film mentioned in order to direct people to go and see it, or buy merchandise? No, it's just mentioned in the context of the cache location. Seems OK then.

 

The same test with a pub. Say a cache description includes "The Horse and Hounds is the best local pub in my opinion, and serves decent food". All the reviewer has to do is judge that the mention of a business is just meant to assist the visiting cacher, not to use the cache as a means to bring in trade (even though that might be a side effect). So this looks fine, and it wouldn't be sensible to require the pub name to be deleted (you'd end up with a big debate on the forums!).

 

Neither of these examples would get published if I was reviewing them. I really don't understand this theme of extraneous information that is supposedly used to assist a visiting cacher. Parking coordinates help a cacher. No one needs to know where any pub is to go geocaching, unless it is where the Event Cache is happening.

 

I'd have to say that you guys have it pretty good with your reviewers in the UK, and from what I understand you guys sound pretty passionate about pubs in general. Reviewers are given the flexibility when it comes to interpreting the guidelines, some like me don't stray very far from them if at all, and some are willing to accept local flavours or be more liberal in their decisions. Where I come from, cache listings are about caches. Some educational content is fine as long as it not commercial or promotional of anything.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I do take it literally 100% of the time and for me it has rarely invited ridicule. For what little it is worth, I make every effort to ensure that all listings that I publish are completely free of any commercial reference. That includes having no businesses by name or inference, no products, or anything in those general areas. Likely some have slipped through, it happens. But to say that it would be "clearly crazy" would be inaccurate in my eyes. I see no reason for the suggested line quoted above to be in a listing. It can be written in such a way to convey the information without any mention of Park Farm.

Thanks for complimenting my opinions; and just to make it clear, I do respect yours and others who disagree.

Having said that...

 

To refuse a cache listing because it says "turn left at Park Farm", or "the footpath begins behind the Dog and Duck", or "the location was used in the film 'King's Speech'" might well elicit an immediate and uncomplaining rewording (in the interests of quick cache publication); but is likely to cause incredulity in the household. Because it would be...how should I put this politely...bonkers.

 

So I guess we'll never agree to any middle ground, as there seems to be no compromise available. I'm not a reviewer, but if I was; then if this guideline is really so rigid I'd resign immediately. Despite the efforts of respected reviewers in this thread, to take the guideline literally still seems ridiculous.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. Apologies to Oofy for widening his complaint to include this sensitive ground!

[+Pieman]

I do take it literally 100% of the time and for me it has rarely invited ridicule. For what little it is worth, I make every effort to ensure that all listings that I publish are completely free of any commercial reference. That includes having no businesses by name or inference, no products, or anything in those general areas. Likely some have slipped through, it happens. But to say that it would be "clearly crazy" would be inaccurate in my eyes. I see no reason for the suggested line quoted above to be in a listing. It can be written in such a way to convey the information without any mention of Park Farm.

Thanks for complimenting my opinions; and just to make it clear, I do respect yours and others who disagree.

Having said that...

 

To refuse a cache listing because it says "turn left at Park Farm", or "the footpath begins behind the Dog and Duck", or "the location was used in the film 'King's Speech'" might well elicit an immediate and uncomplaining rewording (in the interests of quick cache publication); but is likely to cause incredulity in the household. Because it would be...how should I put this politely...bonkers.

 

So I guess we'll never agree to any middle ground, as there seems to be no compromise available. I'm not a reviewer, but if I was; then if this guideline is really so rigid I'd resign immediately. Despite the efforts of respected reviewers in this thread, to take the guideline literally still seems ridiculous.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. Apologies to Oofy for widening his complaint to include this sensitive ground!

Blue Quasar clearly comes from the ultra conservative wing of the reviewers union!

 

Initially, I thought it would make reviewing caches easier but after considering it for a bit I am not sure that adopting this extremist view doesn't make reviewing harder. Checking that references to, for instance, tupperware, all buildings that have entrance fees, and any pictures in the listing that show a business sounds like a tough job. I think Happy Humphrey in his polite manner sums this approach up perfectly.

[+CacheDrone]

Blue Quasar clearly comes from the ultra conservative wing of the reviewers union!

 

Initially, I thought it would make reviewing caches easier but after considering it for a bit I am not sure that adopting this extremist view doesn't make reviewing harder. Checking that references to, for instance, tupperware, all buildings that have entrance fees, and any pictures in the listing that show a business sounds like a tough job. I think Happy Humphrey in his polite manner sums this approach up perfectly.

 

ROFL... yup, I am a card carrying member in good standing within that union (I'm trying to joke around). I know that most of the mentions are innocent, really don't promote anything at all and other stuff like that. Trouble for me is that when I started reviewing there was a big problem with run-away commercialism and it was suggested that it needed to stop. It's just a matter of when I came on board.

 

Perhaps you will find this strangely amusing, or not, but as The Blue Quasar I have pushed the commercial aspect of Waymarking like crazy. We go overboard on commercial stuff over there and I'm all for it. Maybe that is another reason the two games haven't merged, it would be hard to reconcile that the container part can't be commercial but the non-container part could. But the games function in different ways and I have to support what Groundspeak decides for each of them.

[+redsox_mark]

In short, my view on this after considering all the views, is - while it is not a big problem and it can be worked around, a strict guideline which says you must not mention a commercial name on a cache page just seems a bit silly.

 

I am talking about the guidelines here only; not our reviewers use of them.

 

The main argument I have seen for not mentioning a name is that it is a slippery slope, and having a sort of zero tolerance for commercial names avoids the need for reviewers to make judgements. But that logic seems flawed. Consider:

 

1. Permission is given to park at the Red Lion

 

2. The pub with the "cat" on it's sign has the best Sunday roast around. Mention you are a Geocacher and get 10% off.

 

It seems obvious to me that 2 is more commercial than 1. But only 1 mentions the name. So judgement is required regardless.

 

Likewise, if "Park Farm" appears on the OS map, and you want to give some advice to beware of the bull there; it would be helpful to mention Park Farm. Again you could work around it; you could just talk in terms of coordinates, or generically mention a farm, but it could be helpful for those looking at a map to mention the name.

 

Again, I won't lose any sleep over it, and it can be worked around. It just seems a little silly.

[+Andalusite]

Consider:

 

1. Permission is given to park at the Red Lion

 

2. The pub with the "cat" on it's sign has the best Sunday roast around. Mention you are a Geocacher and get 10% off.

 

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

2. -----------------------

 

Example number two is commercial and there's no way around it. Sorry.

 

 

Andalusite

[+redsox_mark]

Consider:

 

1. Permission is given to park at the Red Lion

 

2. The pub with the "cat" on it's sign has the best Sunday roast around. Mention you are a Geocacher and get 10% off.

 

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

2. -----------------------

 

Example number two is commercial and there's no way around it. Sorry.

 

Andalusite

 

Yes, that was my point. Example 2 is commercial even though it doesn't mention "the name". That means reviewers need to make a judgement, whether the name is mentioned or not.

[team tisri]

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

All well and good as long as there is only one pub. If the Red Lion has granted permission but the Kings Arms right next door has signs warning of clamping and towing I'd certainly appreciate a clear indication which pub has granted permission. In fairness if there were signs warning of clamping I'd still check with the pub, it's just a struggle to see why a name can't be mentioned when the purpose is to benefit the cacher rather than the establishment.

[+Andalusite]

Yes, that was my point. Example 2 is commercial even though it doesn't mention "the name". That means reviewers need to make a judgement, whether the name is mentioned or not.

Not a difficult one in this instance - the guidelines are fairly explicit and state that "A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics...It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion", which category the second expample neatly fell into.

 

Yes, reviewing is subjective.

 

Yes, any situation where there are guidelines is going to throw up the odd daft result.

 

Yes the reviewers are just like everyone else and indiviually agree with some of the guidelines, not with others and are neutral about most of them (and argue and moan about them in private!).

 

Yes, the reviewers can exercise their judgement to allow leeway if the cache merits, needs or otherwise 'deserves' it - yes that will mean that we can be accused of being inconsistent.

 

My own view 'from the inside looking out' is that none of the reviewers are trying to "not publish caches" and that most, if not all, will try to suggest ways to alter a cache so that it can be published (although I have heard tales of one (non-UK) reviewer who's standard response to any problem is "this cache does not meet the guidelines -read them and try again" ).

 

A lot of the problems and angst relating to pubs and business names seem to stem from;

 

a ) people wanting to be helpful but being either unwilling or unable to work creatively within the guidelines and use the tools available (waypoints, 'clever' cache titles etc.) to achieve what they want.

 

b ) A less globally consistent approach taken in the 'distant' past by the UK reviewers in the mistaken belief that foreign types hold their local watering holes in lower esteem than us Brits.

 

Do I agree with all the guidelines? Of course not.

 

Do I think that some of them are silly? absolutely.

 

As a reviewer, what I think of any guideline is, at least in public, irrelevant.

 

I have been asked to review caches with respect to the current guidelines and will continue to do so until I eventually get too cheesed off with things and quit. All that I can say is that I strive to do so fairly, consistently and as helpfuly as possible and in line with the guidelines available equally to all cachers, both here and on the GAGB website.

 

If a guideline is unfair, wrong or insensitive to local feeling, mount a feedback forum campaign and lobby to have it changed - Groundspeak are listening, they really are.

 

Apologies for any typos or other nonsense or gobbledegook - I'm doing this at (my proper) work so I have to be quick...

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

Edited March 7, 2011 by Andalusite

[+Andalusite]

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

All well and good as long as there is only one pub. If the Red Lion has granted permission but the Kings Arms right next door has signs warning of clamping and towing I'd certainly appreciate a clear indication which pub has granted permission. In fairness if there were signs warning of clamping I'd still check with the pub, it's just a struggle to see why a name can't be mentioned when the purpose is to benefit the cacher rather than the establishment.

 

This will sound more flippant and snarky than I mean it to, but come on; if your GPS cannot direct you to a waypoint in the correct pub car park then where to park is going to be the least of your caching problems...

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

[dodgydaved]

Issue resolved.

Edited March 7, 2011 by dodgydaved

[+Andalusite]

 

Now that is going too far - perhaps bordering on the libellous - and needs rescinding please.

 

I have edited my previous post.

 

I apologise unreservedly for any upset or offense I may have caused.

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

[dodgydaved]

 

Now that is going too far - perhaps bordering on the libellous - and needs rescinding please.

 

I have edited my previous post.

 

I apologise unreservedly for any upset or offense I may have caused.

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

 

 

Many thanks.

[+redsox_mark]

If a guideline is unfair, wrong or insensitive to local feeling, mount a feedback forum campaign and lobby to have it changed - Groundspeak are listening, they really are.

 

On an different recent thread we had Miss Jenn from Groundspeak explain the policy, and it does not seem like it will change. And it can be worked around. So I for one would not spend the effort to lobby to have it changed. And I'll stop posting about it. It's not unfair, just a little bit silly.

[team tisri]

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

All well and good as long as there is only one pub. If the Red Lion has granted permission but the Kings Arms right next door has signs warning of clamping and towing I'd certainly appreciate a clear indication which pub has granted permission. In fairness if there were signs warning of clamping I'd still check with the pub, it's just a struggle to see why a name can't be mentioned when the purpose is to benefit the cacher rather than the establishment.

 

This will sound more flippant and snarky than I mean it to, but come on; if your GPS cannot direct you to a waypoint in the correct pub car park then where to park is going to be the least of your caching problems...

 

Regards

 

Andalusite

 

In areas of low pub density I'd agree with you 100%. In areas of high pub density, possibly not. I'm thinking of the kind of place where two pubs are literally side by side - combine inaccuracy on the hider's GPS with the inaccuracy on my GPS and you could end up parking in the wrong pub. We might say "park at the scarlet cat" but it seems that requiring the Red Lion to be called "the scarlet cat" just seems like creating a rule for the sake of having it circumvented.

 

It's theoretical I know, and it sounds like that's the way it's going to be kept. As you say, any time anyone interprets guidelines as opposed to implementing rules sooner or later they are going to do something that appears inconsistent to somebody.

 

Maybe we should have an award for the most creative way of describing something?

[+sTeamTraen]

In areas of low pub density I'd agree with you 100%. In areas of high pub density, possibly not. I'm thinking of the kind of place where two pubs are literally side by side - combine inaccuracy on the hider's GPS with the inaccuracy on my GPS and you could end up parking in the wrong pub.

Given that the two pubs are so close, why would this be a problem? "OMG, we parked 20 yards further from the cache than it said, how will we ever find the car now when we walk back to the parking waypoint?".

 

And even if one of the pubs has a large sign up saying "customers only, strictly enforced, violators will be clamped, crushed, and blown up", if a cache seeker needs to be told to avoid that in a tiny font on a cache page or in their paperless GPSr, should they really be allowed to operate a motor vehicle? How do we imagine that these people manage when they go out on a non-geocaching trip?

[team tisri]

Given that the two pubs are so close, why would this be a problem? "OMG, we parked 20 yards further from the cache than it said, how will we ever find the car now when we walk back to the parking waypoint?".

 

Nothing to do with finding the car again, everything to do with finding the car clamped.

 

And even if one of the pubs has a large sign up saying "customers only, strictly enforced, violators will be clamped, crushed, and blown up", if a cache seeker needs to be told to avoid that in a tiny font on a cache page or in their paperless GPSr, should they really be allowed to operate a motor vehicle? How do we imagine that these people manage when they go out on a non-geocaching trip?

 

Signs warning of clamping, towing etc aren't always as visible as they might be. The way I cope on non-caching trips is I don't park in pub car parks unless I'm planning on visiting the pub.

 

Which does lead into an interesting question. If there's a circuit of caches, the circuit starts very near the pub but the pub has a very active parking enforcement policy, is it acceptable to say on the cache page "Don't park at the Red Lion unless you're planning on eating there, or you will be clamped. Parking is available on the road"?

[+keehotee]

Given that the two pubs are so close, why would this be a problem? "OMG, we parked 20 yards further from the cache than it said, how will we ever find the car now when we walk back to the parking waypoint?".

 

Nothing to do with finding the car again, everything to do with finding the car clamped.

 

And even if one of the pubs has a large sign up saying "customers only, strictly enforced, violators will be clamped, crushed, and blown up", if a cache seeker needs to be told to avoid that in a tiny font on a cache page or in their paperless GPSr, should they really be allowed to operate a motor vehicle? How do we imagine that these people manage when they go out on a non-geocaching trip?

 

Signs warning of clamping, towing etc aren't always as visible as they might be. The way I cope on non-caching trips is I don't park in pub car parks unless I'm planning on visiting the pub.

 

Which does lead into an interesting question. If there's a circuit of caches, the circuit starts very near the pub but the pub has a very active parking enforcement policy, is it acceptable to say on the cache page "Don't park at the Red Lion unless you're planning on eating there, or you will be clamped. Parking is available on the road"?

 

Is this really enough of an issue to worry about?

I can honestly say, in 7 years and 2000ish caches, I've been directed by a cache page to park in a pub car park once. In Wales. And the page said "we suggest you park in the pub car park"!

[+Happy Humphrey]

The example from Team Tisri is pretty weak and I think serves only to distract from the key issue, which is that some cache listings are falling foul of the "commercial cache" guideline when almost everyone would agree that they are not commercial caches.

[+The Hornet]

Interesting comments on several fronts. Sure I made the right decision 'in the distant past'.

[+Mark+Karen]

Parking is a bit of a non issue IMO. It's not up to the cache owner to tell the finders where they can and cannot legally park. In order to drive a motor vehicle in the UK you need to be aware of these issues for yourself, since it's your car!

[team tisri]

The example from Team Tisri is pretty weak and I think serves only to distract from the key issue, which is that some cache listings are falling foul of the "commercial cache" guideline when almost everyone would agree that they are not commercial caches.

 

With respect, I don't think any one example is stronger or weaker than another if we're talking about GPS coordinates.

 

The key point as I see it is that the mere mention of a name of an establishment isn't the same as advertising it. Comments like "park at the pub", "the trail starts behind the pub" etc don't seem any less commercial than "park at the Red Lion", "the trail starts behind the Kings Arms" or whatever. It's not as if anyone is going to read a cache listing that happens to mention a particular pub and decide to head out there for a swift half.

[team tisri]

Parking is a bit of a non issue IMO. It's not up to the cache owner to tell the finders where they can and cannot legally park. In order to drive a motor vehicle in the UK you need to be aware of these issues for yourself, since it's your car!

 

It's ultimately for the driver to decide whether to park somewhere or not, it's just nice when driving to an unfamiliar area to have some indications of good places to park. If there's a layby nearish the cache where parking is allowed it's good to know about it rather than parking some distance away and having a much longer walk. It's also nice to see a cache circuit with reference to possible parking points around the circuit.

 

That leads onto another interesting issue. Does posting the coordinates for a car park that charges to park count as being "commercial"? Is it really so different to say "Parking at the multistorey is £10 all day" compared to "you can park at the pub as long as you buy a meal"?

 

Which I guess goes right back to the reviewers being given a little discretion to interpret.

[+sTeamTraen]

Signs warning of clamping, towing etc aren't always as visible as they might be. The way I cope on non-caching trips is I don't park in pub car parks unless I'm planning on visiting the pub.

So why would the seeker trust the cache placer to have noticed such a sign? Maybe there's one in the recommended car park as well. I try not to delegate anything more than providing the location of the cache to the cache owner. For one thing, if s/he's wrong about the clamping, it's going to be me who ends up paying...

[+Unobtainium]

1. "Permission has kindly been given to park at the pub - see the additional waypoint/parking coordinates".

 

All well and good as long as there is only one pub. If the Red Lion has granted permission but the Kings Arms right next door has signs warning of clamping and towing I'd certainly appreciate a clear indication which pub has granted permission. In fairness if there were signs warning of clamping I'd still check with the pub, it's just a struggle to see why a name can't be mentioned when the purpose is to benefit the cacher rather than the establishment.

Lets hope the CO in this example isn't using an iPhone

[team tisri]

Signs warning of clamping, towing etc aren't always as visible as they might be. The way I cope on non-caching trips is I don't park in pub car parks unless I'm planning on visiting the pub.

So why would the seeker trust the cache placer to have noticed such a sign? Maybe there's one in the recommended car park as well. I try not to delegate anything more than providing the location of the cache to the cache owner. For one thing, if s/he's wrong about the clamping, it's going to be me who ends up paying...

 

I'd obviously check for myself before leaving my car in a car park. The point of looking at suggested parking coordinates is precisely that, to get an idea of where I might park if I'm driving to a cache or a cache circuit. If I don't like the look of the suggested parking spot then I'll do much as I'd do if the suggested parking was full - go somewhere else.

 

If a cache owner posts a suggested place to park it's not unreasonable to assume it will be somewhere that's suitable for parking. It's hard to see why a cache setter would post coordinates for suggested parking based on nothing more than observing a derelict patch of land.

[+prosniper]

In a similar vein:

 

"Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda."

 

Now look at GC2P6V2.

 

I am not for one minute suggesting that the CO is making a political comment here - I am almost certain that he isn't, only looking for verisimilitude in a cache description - but then sending a cacher to a film location and mentioning the film, or telling someone about the "Pig and Whistle" is just as unlikely to be a deliberate commercial ploy.

 

Again, this is not a criticism of a reviewer - heaven forbid I am well aware of the pressures of that particular reponsibility - but of the guidelines, and the interpretations of them, that seem to force an artificial stricture on the content of the cache page.

 

 

thats my cache

[+Happy Humphrey]

That leads onto another interesting issue. Does posting the coordinates for a car park that charges to park count as being "commercial"? Is it really so different to say "Parking at the multistorey is £10 all day" compared to "you can park at the pub as long as you buy a meal"?

I think that's a better example. Typically, you might say "Parking available in the NCP car park, although it's £5 per hour. Don't use the Pig and Whistle car park unless you buy something, as you could be clamped. You might be able to park for free round the back of Primark, depending on the time of day". But now it's a "commercial cache"!

So you have to reword it;

"Parking available at <coordinates>, although there may be a charge. Don't use the car park near <coordinates> unless you buy something, as you could be clamped. You might be able to park for free round the back of the shop at <coordinates>, depending on the time of day". Possibly OK, but hardly helpful!

[+Andalusite]

Typically, you might say "Parking available in the NCP car park, although it's £5 per hour. Don't use the Pig and Whistle car park unless you buy something, as you could be clamped. You might be able to park for free round the back of Primark, depending on the time of day". But now it's a "commercial cache"!

So you have to reword it;

"Parking available at <coordinates>, although there may be a charge. Don't use the car park near <coordinates> unless you buy something, as you could be clamped. You might be able to park for free round the back of the shop at <coordinates>, depending on the time of day". Possibly OK, but hardly helpful!

 

"You can park in the pay and display carpark <coordinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>. You can also park at the pub <coordinates> but may get clamped if you don't buy something."

 

or you can just provide advice on the best locations to park;

 

"You can park in the pay and display carpark <coodinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>."

Edited March 9, 2011 by Andalusite

[+Icenians]

"You can park in the pay and display carpark <coordinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>. You can also park at the pub <coordinates> but may get clamped if you don't buy something."

 

or you can just provide advice on the best locations to park;

 

"You can park in the pay and display carpark <coodinates, attribute> or there is limited on-street parking available in Exmoor Street <coordinates>."

 

And as a result of all this sillyness about not using names you have managed to neatly send the cacher to a commercial company and drumming up business for them. So, still benefits the company and just hinders everyone else that little bit more.

 

You guys at Groundspeak really do need to get a life and a little perspective on reality!

[+The Hornet]

As this discussion has moved away from the original question about commercial film locations onto the hoary old chestnut of British Pubs (yet again!) maybe I could ask a related question. Towards the end of each cache page there are a set of links provided by Groundspeak. These assist cachers finding useful information. One of these provides a list of local Hotels, all of which are commercial organisations and I suspect none of them pay Groundspeak for the privilege. Is this correct? Do Groundspeak get no payback from them?

 

How about Groundspeak implementing a similar link listing local pubs? This would solve the vexed issue of cache owners daring to mention names. If necessary a bit of code could be inserted limiting the link to UK based caches.

 

An alternative, if this is unacceptable, is for cachers to use Groundspeak's own Waymarking site and adding the local pub as a Waymark. This seems to be allowed so then clicking on "Find all nearby Waymarks" would have the desired result in a totally avveptable fashion. An example can be seen here...

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 10, 2011 by The Hornet

[+Icenians]

The crazy thing is, a cache event, in a pub, was publish just yesterday. The pub name, the fact that drinks and bacon rolls will be on sale, the lot. If it's OK for an event, then surely it must be OK to mention the name in a cache page. Lets face it, a publican is far more likely to get something from that, especially as it's at 9am, than a name check in a bog standard cache listing.

 

I'm sorry guys but you're approach to this, no matter how much you defend it, just makes you look very silly and very petty.

[+Munkeh]

is there any members of moaners anonymous in this thread, just so I know where not to go