+seneca Posted May 8, 2002 Share Posted May 8, 2002 There has been a recent thread on the general forum regarding 6 virtual caches that were not approved. It appears that most people are wondering what the criteria is for approving a cache. I think that the criteria should be set out in a clear policy statement that is posted to Geocaching.com. These are what I think the criteria should be: A Geocache should be approved unless: 1. It will damage or reasonably appear to damage the environment. 2. It is generally offensive (vulgar or racist for example). 3. It infringes on copyright or intellectual property rights of others. 4. It is placed on property where the managing authority has specifically disallowed the placement of caches (ie. National Parks). 5. It creates a danger or hazard. 6. It primarily serves a commercial purpose. 7. It will obviously create a bad feeling among the public towards the sport of Geocaching. What would you add or delete from this list? You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it! Link to comment
el10t Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 8. It plainly does not exist (e.g. on Mars etc) ----------------- el10t mobilis in mobili Link to comment
+Hawk-eye Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 The trouble is ... if a person reads the verbage on the webpage ... it explains everything ... and the rest is common sense. But maybe you're right ... some folks need everything spelled out to the letter. I guess over the years I've gotten tired of the vasted amount of time and money that has to go into "idiot proofing" everything in the world. It goes against natural evolutional changes ... Leave off the warning labels on lawnmowers not to stick your hand under them while the blade is turning ... eventually you don't have to worry about the problem ... they will naturally "thin" themselves out Excuse me now ... but I have to finish working on my next cache ... "Caching for radioactive waste" that I'm "burying" in a "wildlife reserve". ---------------------------------------------------------------- Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION" ... when you absolutely have to find it first! Link to comment
+Hawk-eye Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 The trouble is ... if a person reads the verbage on the webpage ... it explains everything ... and the rest is common sense. But maybe you're right ... some folks need everything spelled out to the letter. I guess over the years I've gotten tired of the vasted amount of time and money that has to go into "idiot proofing" everything in the world. It goes against natural evolutional changes ... Leave off the warning labels on lawnmowers not to stick your hand under them while the blade is turning ... eventually you don't have to worry about the problem ... they will naturally "thin" themselves out Excuse me now ... but I have to finish working on my next cache ... "Caching for radioactive waste" that I'm "burying" in a "wildlife reserve". ---------------------------------------------------------------- Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION" ... when you absolutely have to find it first! Link to comment
+Markwell Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 Another problem is that some dufus would read the wording and purposefully make a cache that common sense says shouldn't be approved, yet follows all of the guidelines. There's always one in every crowd. Markwell My Geocaching Page Link to comment
+Hawk-eye Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Markwell:...There's always one in every crowd.... Truer words never spoke amgio! ---------------------------------------------------------------- Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION" ... when you absolutely have to find it first! Link to comment
+seneca Posted May 9, 2002 Author Share Posted May 9, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Hawk-eye: The trouble is ... if a person reads the verbage on the webpage ... it explains everything ... The webpage does not explain why 6 virtuals in Yellowstone that appear to meet the "common sense" test could not be approved. You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it! Link to comment
+Hawk-eye Posted May 9, 2002 Share Posted May 9, 2002 quote:Originally posted by seneca:...that appear to meet the "common sense" test could not be approved... Well ... apparently they didn't ... send Jeremy an email and ask why. Can't offer an opinion since I've never seen the verbage myself. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Co-founder of the "NC/VA GEO-HOG ASSOCIATION" ... when you absolutely have to find it first! Link to comment
Recommended Posts