Jump to content

Is a parkade a commercial institution?


thebruce0

Recommended Posts

(reposting to the correct topic for discussion, from this thread)

 

Well maybe not that simple.

1. Are geocaches allowed to be placed within or on top of public parking garages?

2. Is a parkade a commercial institution that qualifies for denial of cache publication?

3. If so, so should existing caches that are located in and on parkade buildings be disabled and archived?

Link to comment

Yes.

 

why bother with a useless answer?

 

Because no one outside of Canada knows what a Parkade is? :blink:

 

There have been boatloads of these types of caches in the past, and the nearest one to me, published maybe a year and a half ago, is in a privately owned Parkade, whatever that is. Sorry couldn't resist. :ph34r:

 

Public, City owned parking garage? I can't possibly see a problem. I guess more details are needed, and possibly reviewer input, if they are indeed denying these across the board.

Link to comment

In this case, yes, it's a city owned "parkade", or parking garage. 24/7 access, publicly accessible, parking fee if parking there but free parking elsewhere nearby.

 

Here are just a few other similar examples I found, a few of which I've logged:

http://coord.info/GC1PYVJ Mall Parkade Cache

http://coord.info/GC2KZMT Commuter Cache #3: Parking Rates are HIGH

http://coord.info/GC16X1H West Edmonton Mall

http://coord.info/GC1NBV4 Please Watch Your Step

http://coord.info/GC1AVMJ Level the Playing Field

http://coord.info/GC2QHDX Such Great Heights (formerly: Egg-stravaganza #7)

http://coord.info/GC1BDT4 Park up your day

http://coord.info/GC1REDM It's your basic Hide-a-Key\"B4 & there After !!!"

http://coord.info/GC2MVRZ Mercury (Bloomington Solar System)

http://coord.info/GC17DYX High on Classics

Link to comment

The parkades and mall parkades and parking lots, as with the strip malls are all owned by someone. Some of ours are city owned, some by parking companies - so permission would have to be given, I guess. You can ride the elevator free, get a view of sorts on the top floor....

I don't think there are any hidden in any multi-storey parking garage in our city - I can see the police being called with concerned citizens thinking we geocachers were up to no good. The idea doesn't appeal to me.

Link to comment

(reposting to the correct topic for discussion, from this thread)

 

Well maybe not that simple.

1. Are geocaches allowed to be placed within or on top of public parking garages?

2. Is a parkade a commercial institution that qualifies for denial of cache publication?

3. If so, so should existing caches that are located in and on parkade buildings be disabled and archived?

 

I'm curious, are you looking to place one or get one archived? (He said with a straight face)

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

(reposting to the correct topic for discussion, from this thread)

 

Well maybe not that simple.

1. Are geocaches allowed to be placed within or on top of public parking garages?

2. Is a parkade a commercial institution that qualifies for denial of cache publication?

3. If so, so should existing caches that are located in and on parkade buildings be disabled and archived?

 

It is irrelevant whether or not it is a commercial institution. The question is, how is the cache written up.

 

Please fill us in on the backstory before you start asking questions like this, OK? What is this all about? Did you have a cache denied, and if so, why?

Link to comment
Please fill us in on the backstory before you start asking questions like this, OK? What is this all about? Did you have a cache denied, and if so, why?

I didn't know that more detail about the listing would be required, as it seems like a straight forward question. I did provide what I would presume would be enough information and context to find out if there were a straightforward "yep it's ok" or "no they're disallowed". It shouldn't matter whether I'm the one trying to publish, or trying to archive.

 

As I detailed above:

In this case, it is a city owned "parkade", or parking garage. 24/7 access, publicly accessible, parking at the garage is not required to find the cache, and free parking is available elsewhere nearby.

What other factors might be in play here? Anything else that might have an effect on its validity? (honestly asking)

Link to comment

I would think that it kind of depends on the situation. I have found such caches, but not every "parkade" is an appropriate location for a cache. For example, a parking structure in a large International Airport would have some difficulty getting through the Review process I suspect.

 

Without additional information on the location and the surrounding area, it's a bit difficult to answer specifics.

Link to comment

It's nothing special, really. A garage in a city downtown. Cookie-cutter :P. An airport would be an understandably bad or at least risky location, as would a company's multi-level parking lot or garage, perhaps even an apartment building's; definitely a garage requiring an access fee for a private company/store/mall. This is a city-owned 5 level open parking garage located downtown.

Link to comment

Interesting. I've found a few of these in the past and somewhat enjoyed them. As long as the general public can enter on foot without paying a fee then I would assume that this would be okay.

 

Listing off a bunch of other caches really doesn't endear you to a reviewer. Instead it's insulting and often just causes them to dig in their heels more, which likely isn't the best response but neither is the act of throwing a bunch of other listings under the proverbial bus. From what I understand each listing is reviewed based on the current guidelines as the individual reviewer interprets them. Reviewers have the latitude to be able to grant exceptions through discussion with the Cache Owner, and just because someone else was published does not mean the same is true on subsequent reviews. Each listing should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

 

Work with your reviewer to increase success for everyone.

 

B) BQ

 

edit: fixed smiley

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to comment

@BQ: Were it so easy. :ph34r:

But thank you for the reminder...

 

@Potato: The cache listing is nothing special, nothing unique. The cache location is indeed a very nice location.

 

You just said "It's nothing special, really. A garage in a city downtown." And you were talking about the location, the parking garage.

 

Anyway, there are lots are parking garage hides. But it still depends on the actual location and circumstances.

 

If you are considering placing a cache, then go ahead and see if it gets published.

 

If you already tried publishing a cache and it was turned down, quit playing games and tell us the reason the reviewer stated for not publishing your cache.

 

If someone else has a cache in a parking garage and you are just curious, then it probably is ok. As long as there is no fee required to access the cache, the cache has proper permission, and the listing doesn't mention anything of a commercial nature, then it should be fine.

Link to comment

(reposting to the correct topic for discussion, from this thread)

 

Well maybe not that simple.

1. Are geocaches allowed to be placed within or on top of public parking garages?

2. Is a parkade a commercial institution that qualifies for denial of cache publication?

3. If so, so should existing caches that are located in and on parkade buildings be disabled and archived?

1, They are allowed if they comply with the guidelines. Probably the most important to remember is you need adequate permission to place a cache on public or private property. Also parking garages often have muggles who might find a cacher searching for a cache there suspicious, and the guidelines say you must consider how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public.

 

2. I think Knowschad says it best. Just because you have to pay to park there doesn't mean it violates the commercial guidelines. The commercial guideline are primarily meant to prevent cache pages from becoming advertising.

 

The fact that you called out this guideline, which probably wouldn't apply to most parkade caches, is one reason your question doesn't come across as an innocent question.

 

3. This is other reason your question doesn't come across as innocent. Most geocachers would see there are many geocaches hidden in parking structures. While they may question the wisdom of some of these hides, they are likely going to conclude that these caches are allowed under the guidelines. At the very least, even if there were in violation of current guidelines, one would assume that the older parkade caches might be grandfathered.

 

The simple answer to 3 is No. If you read and understand the guidelines and see a particular cache that is in clear violation you can post a needs archive or contact the reviewer. Calling for the disabling and archiving of a whole class of geocaches is unlikely ever the correct answer to anything (though this doesn't stop someone from starting a thread doing just that every few days :mmraspberry:)

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I got to thinking about this a bit more and have some concerns about it.

 

A public parking garage is a privately owned building, even if it belongs to the city. Most of the ones that I have been in are signed that they are for parking of vehicles only (along with other warning about what that means) and I would hazard a guess that they do not allow skateboarding or other recreational activities. For example, I would bet that security or the police would escort a group of people from the premises if they were playing street hockey on the rooftop. Now, as silly as this might sound to us imagine how the actions of geocachers compare to those other examples. Someone is searching around pillars, elevator shafts, etc for several minutes doing who knows what? If I wasn't a cacher, I might be really worried about this. It's not as simple as some teenager on a BMX flying down the ramps as cars try to avoid them. This could be someone placing a bomb or searching for their hidden drugs...

 

So then it comes back to "Get permission in writing" since you believe that this location can support a geocache, it should be a simple affair to get someone in charge of the garage to agree with you and allow it officially. Then everyone is happy.

 

B) BQ

Link to comment

I got to thinking about this a bit more and have some concerns about it.

 

A public parking garage is a privately owned building, even if it belongs to the city. Most of the ones that I have been in are signed that they are for parking of vehicles only (along with other warning about what that means) and I would hazard a guess that they do not allow skateboarding or other recreational activities. For example, I would bet that security or the police would escort a group of people from the premises if they were playing street hockey on the rooftop. Now, as silly as this might sound to us imagine how the actions of geocachers compare to those other examples. Someone is searching around pillars, elevator shafts, etc for several minutes doing who knows what? If I wasn't a cacher, I might be really worried about this. It's not as simple as some teenager on a BMX flying down the ramps as cars try to avoid them. This could be someone placing a bomb or searching for their hidden drugs...

 

So then it comes back to "Get permission in writing" since you believe that this location can support a geocache, it should be a simple affair to get someone in charge of the garage to agree with you and allow it officially. Then everyone is happy.

 

B) BQ

 

I would agree with this 100% BQ. However, I'm tending to think one was denied for being a "commercial institution" That seems kinda strange to me.

Link to comment

Thank you for the last few responses, those have been more insightful and helpful. My apologies if I come off annoyed and bothered - I've had a very frustrating time with the system recently and not on clearly outlined issues, but rather on unfortunate circumstances and unclear situations and judgements.

 

I wanted to find out if a specific issue is defined/outlined officially, across the board. Admittedly, #3 was pretty leading. It seems the issue is far from cut and dry, however, which essentially answers my primary concern.

 

To clear the air and start over, yes I am publishing a cache. I didn't want the responses to be biased at all, just about finding out what strict rules existed for this context.

 

The publish was denied because:

1) I named the patkade in the description (which is just the [city] Parkade)

2) the cache is promoting a commercial institution, a business. I was cited the guidelines for Commercial Caches and Caches That Solicit.

 

These points, and these two points alone imply that any cache in or on a parkade is soliciting a business, of parking fees, and cannot be published.

 

That's what raised my red flag prompting input about parking garages as commercial institutions and the question of caches being placed therein as 'advertising' as business.

 

I fully understand the various reason such a guideline would exist for 'advertising', and I adhere to that, but... a city parking garage. Really?

 

I provided explanations and further details about the listing and location, but it fell on deaf ears with the reviewer deciding we were at an impasse, then locked and archived the listing.

I have since taken it to appeals and am waiting a response.

 

Thanks gain to those who responded thoughtfully. And please take my comments with a grain of salt as my frustration is growing and patience is thinning. Cue the :signalviolin:

 

:ph34r::lostsignal::mmraspberry::wacko:

 

ETA: Please excuse the typos as posting via remote desktop on an iphone while caching in the forest is quite tedious :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Thank you for the last few responses, those have been more insightful and helpful. My apologies if I come off annoyed and bothered - I've had a very frustrating time with the system recently and not on clearly outlined issues, but rather on unfortunate circumstances and unclear situations and judgements.

 

I wanted to find out if a specific issue is defined/outlined officially, across the board. Admittedly, #3 was pretty leading. It seems the issue is far from cut and dry, however, which essentially answers my primary concern.

 

To clear the air and start over, yes I am publishing a cache. I didn't want the responses to be biased at all, just about finding out what strict rules existed for this context.

 

The publish was denied because:

1) I named the patkade in the description (which is just the [city] Parkade)

2) the cache is promoting a commercial institution, a business. I was cited the guidelines for Commercial Caches and Caches That Solicit.

 

These points, and these two points alone imply that any cache in or on a parkade is soliciting a business, of parking fees, and cannot be published.

 

That's what raised my red flag prompting input about parking garages as commercial institutions and the question of caches being placed therein as 'advertising' as business.

 

I fully understand the various reason such a guideline would exist for 'advertising', and I adhere to that, but... a city parking garage. Really?

 

I provided explanations and further details about the listing and location, but it fell on deaf ears with the reviewer deciding we were at an impasse, then locked and archived the listing.

I have since taken it to appeals and am waiting a response.

 

Thanks gain to those who responded thoughtfully. And please take my comments with a grain of salt as my frustration is growing and patience is thinning. Cue the :signalviolin:

 

:ph34r::lostsignal::mmraspberry::wacko:

 

ETA: Please excuse the typos as posting via remote desktop on an iphone while caching in the forest is quite tedious :P

Thanks for providing an explanation. The commercial guidelines explicitly mention using the name of a business on the cache page particularly in the cache title. At first it sounded like the reviewer might be using a too strict interpretation of the guidelines, but when I checked, the guidelines appear to have been simplified to make them more understandable, with the effect that even mentioning a city run parking garage by name could be grounds for denying a cache. I would call this an example of guidelines creep. Fairly reasonable guidelines become more strictly worded over time to avoid disputes between cachers and reviewers. However, in this case it would be simple enough to fix the wording on the cache page to avoid using the name of the parkade. I've been enjoying the clever ways people have posted caches recently an letting me know there is a QR code in them for another game :ph34r: . Groundspeak certainly goes overboard a bit telling reviewers that certain things constitute advertising when they clearly don't. But in doing so they have guidelines that are easier to comprehend than ones that try to determine when the mention of a business is casual versus being a viral advertisement.

Link to comment

Yep, many of us know that guideline 'creep' all too well. And yes, I did fix the 'name' in the description. Did not make a difference. (and the cache name never had the parkade name). The cache is now at a parkade in [part of city], instead of on [Part of City] Parkade. <_<

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Thank you for the last few responses, those have been more insightful and helpful. My apologies if I come off annoyed and bothered - I've had a very frustrating time with the system recently and not on clearly outlined issues, but rather on unfortunate circumstances and unclear situations and judgements.

 

I wanted to find out if a specific issue is defined/outlined officially, across the board. Admittedly, #3 was pretty leading. It seems the issue is far from cut and dry, however, which essentially answers my primary concern.

 

To clear the air and start over, yes I am publishing a cache. I didn't want the responses to be biased at all, just about finding out what strict rules existed for this context.

 

The publish was denied because:

1) I named the patkade in the description (which is just the [city] Parkade)

2) the cache is promoting a commercial institution, a business. I was cited the guidelines for Commercial Caches and Caches That Solicit.

 

These points, and these two points alone imply that any cache in or on a parkade is soliciting a business, of parking fees, and cannot be published.

 

That's what raised my red flag prompting input about parking garages as commercial institutions and the question of caches being placed therein as 'advertising' as business.

 

I fully understand the various reason such a guideline would exist for 'advertising', and I adhere to that, but... a city parking garage. Really?

 

I provided explanations and further details about the listing and location, but it fell on deaf ears with the reviewer deciding we were at an impasse, then locked and archived the listing.

I have since taken it to appeals and am waiting a response.

 

Thanks gain to those who responded thoughtfully. And please take my comments with a grain of salt as my frustration is growing and patience is thinning. Cue the :signalviolin:

 

:ph34r::lostsignal::mmraspberry::wacko:

 

ETA: Please excuse the typos as posting via remote desktop on an iphone while caching in the forest is quite tedious :P

 

Sounds like an easy fix is to remove the name of the parking garage and any other mention of the garage's name or purpose from the description if it exists.

 

I personally think Groundspeak has gone overboard with the "commercial" guideline.

 

"Eat at Joe's Crabshack" would be pushing things since it sounds like you are encouraging cachers to eat there.

 

"Crabshack Cache" is not encouraging anything. If anything it's a hint to where it might be. But under the current guidelines AND enforcement, both would be turned down.

 

But that's the subject of a separate thread. <_<

Link to comment

Thank you for the last few responses, those have been more insightful and helpful. My apologies if I come off annoyed and bothered - I've had a very frustrating time with the system recently and not on clearly outlined issues, but rather on unfortunate circumstances and unclear situations and judgements.

 

<snip>

 

ETA: Please excuse the typos as posting via remote desktop on an iphone while caching in the forest is quite tedious :P

 

Maybe it's just me? But part of why I go caching is to get away from issues that may be bothersome, and to get outdoors and enjoy the view and fresh air. Perhaps keeping up with a forum thread instead of just having fun out there is adding to the annoyance and bother levels?

Link to comment

Well, that's what helps me cope :P I just found a multi that's unmaintained, by an owner who's MIA, and replaced and fixed stage 1 after getting its hint from a previous finder. So I'm happy; my forum and publishing woes are very separate from my outdoorsy caching woes. :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

The publish was denied because:

1) I named the patkade in the description (which is just the [city] Parkade)

2) the cache is promoting a commercial institution, a business. I was cited the guidelines for Commercial Caches and Caches That Solicit.

 

These points, and these two points alone imply that any cache in or on a parkade is soliciting a business, of parking fees, and cannot be published.

 

 

Just so I'm clear here, the City is the "commercial institution, the business"?

 

To me, this sounds like taking the interpretation of the commercial clause in the guidelines to the max. However, I'd bet anything that your case has been discussed amongst reviewers all over the world in the super top secret reviewers only forum, and there was a consensus against it.

Link to comment
Please fill us in on the backstory before you start asking questions like this, OK? What is this all about? Did you have a cache denied, and if so, why?

I didn't know that more detail about the listing would be required, as it seems like a straight forward question. I did provide what I would presume would be enough information and context to find out if there were a straightforward "yep it's ok" or "no they're disallowed". It shouldn't matter whether I'm the one trying to publish, or trying to archive.

 

As I detailed above:

In this case, it is a city owned "parkade", or parking garage. 24/7 access, publicly accessible, parking at the garage is not required to find the cache, and free parking is available elsewhere nearby.

What other factors might be in play here? Anything else that might have an effect on its validity? (honestly asking)

Its just that, all too often, questions such as yours are really just looking for justification for a revewer denial, and when that happens, we rarely get all of the facts up front. Guess I've become trigger-happy.

 

We have a great many parking ramp, or "parkade" caches around here. Permission is the only issue that might pertain. Many of them have security cameras, too. Personally, I am not at all fond of them... they make me feel uncomfortable, and unless the view from the top is spectacular, always leave me wondering, "why?"

Link to comment

Its just that, all too often, questions such as yours are really just looking for justification for a revewer denial, and when that happens, we rarely get all of the facts up front. Guess I've become trigger-happy.

I agree. Personally, I would have waited for the appeals process rather than going straight to the forums, but it's the OP's right to do either or both at the time(s) of his choosing.

We have a great many parking ramp, or "parkade" caches around here. Permission is the only issue that might pertain. Many of them have security cameras, too. Personally, I am not at all fond of them... they make me feel uncomfortable, and unless the view from the top is spectacular, always leave me wondering, "why?"

Indeed, I would have rejected the OP's cache, too, but for different reasons. There is language on the cache page about the need for stealth due to security cameras. Reading this, I would have questioned permission, since it would be unreasonable for me to apply the usual presumption of permission.

 

On the commercialism issue, I think the fact that the parkade is city-owned and the fact that non-parkers are free to access the facility without paying are helpful and relevant, if established.

 

Bottom line, this is not the "simple question" posed in the opening post. Everything is situation-specific. Parking garages at a medical facility, a provincial government complex, a suburban mall and an urban downtown all present different issues to the reviewer. Inevitably, different reviewers will apply their judgment differently to the different locations.

Link to comment
if it is a commercial site' date=' please get permission. [/quote']

No, commercial sites aren't about permission - that's about advertising. Private property = get permission. "Commercial Institution" = No Publish (apparently, a blanket definition, which is the issue at hand here)

 

There is language on the cache page about the need for stealth due to security cameras.

First' date=' thanks for chiming in, Keystone.

Now, if that's how it was understood, then having me clarify the description or the location would been a better suggestion than locking the listing. In fact, that's not what the description says. I can see how it could be [i']mis-read[/i] as that, however. I said there are security cameras (as is standard for parking garages these days) so don't loiter (echoing signs that are also standard in areas such as this - no loitering). I said stealth would not be an issue here, except if it's very busy (with muggles, standard stealth concern; there's even a Stealth Required attribute, which I did not flag, knowing that in this place it would generally not be a concern).

 

Inevitably, different reviewers will apply their judgment differently to the different locations.

Agreed. So I think it would have gone over better had the reviewer asked me to describe the area to determine if it were actually appropriate and safe.

That said, I can see how the wording I used in the description might raise concerns. However, those weren't the reasons I was given for the denial of publishing, and with the book being closed after only one chance to address the points raised, I didn't have much chance to explain the hide or make more than one alteration.

 

At that time, my bigger concern slash wonderment was whether the problem I was quoted was indeed a blanket rule that all reviewers were making (since I didn't really get a chance to explain the location any further). So the forum seemed an apt place to ask and discuss (my apologies for initially posting in the wrong forum and no contacting a moderator to move the thread), as it would seem to apply to more than just my situation, knowing there are similar caches (and shadier caches) all around the continent...

 

Again, I was just trying to get more information about the reason I was given for the denial. I will gladly make changes to the cache description to make it more appropriate.

Hey, I was just trying to be honest and clear :P

Link to comment

If I were a reviewer I would ask for explicit, written permission from any location that was so concerned about security that they felt the need for security cameras. I'd also be inclined to think of no loitering signs as roughly equivalent to no trespassing signs. At least close enough that again, I'd be concerned about permission. I think that too often people seem to equate publicly owned property with free range. Just because it is owned by a government entity does not mean you can treat it as your own playground. A car park/parking garage/parkade is not the same as a public park. TPTB don't expect us to play there. They expect us to park our cars.

Link to comment

'No loitering' signs are everywhere. Everywhere. If a location having a 'no loitering' sign is disallowed, then it should be a rule that geocaches cannot be published anywhere there is a no loitering sign.

 

But, once again, this was not about loitering or private property (and its varying degrees of application - general parking lots are private property too - players make the judgement call when placing, and reviewers when reviewing whether the location is appropriate) - this was about the location being a commercial institution, a business, and thus the issue was by extension one of advertising a business.

 

That was the reason for denial.

 

Reviewer: "As this cache is in a Parkade, and that parkade is a business this location can not be listed."

Link to comment
if it is a commercial site' date=' please get permission.[/quote']

No, commercial sites aren't about permission - that's about advertising. Private property = get permission. "Commercial Institution" = No Publish (apparently, a blanket definition, which is the issue at hand here)

 

Please explain all the Walmart parking lot caches and other caches located on commercial property.

 

You can hide caches on commercial property. And ALL property should have permission. It's just that some property is assumed to have adequate permission where other property requires a more defined permission, like a name or in some cases written permission.

 

If your cache mentioned being careful of security cameras, then I can see where it was assumed you did not have adequate permission. Give the reviewer some assurance that you spoke to the parking garage management or at least someone in security and 1) your cache would probably be approved and 2) there would be no need for concern about security cameras.

 

I said there are security cameras (as is standard for parking garages these days) so don't loiter (echoing signs that are also standard in areas such as this - no loitering).

 

No Loitering signs would be a red flag to me that the property management doesn't want people there unless they are parking their car. Again, if you had explicit permission, then those concerns would be quelled.

Link to comment

No Loitering signs would be a red flag to me that the property management doesn't want people there unless they are parking their car. Again, if you had explicit permission, then those concerns would be quelled.

 

I'm sure the No Loitering signs are there to give management sufficient reason to call the police on anybody that they feel may be looking to vandalize, break into, or steal cars. They want you to park your car and go to where you are going. If they allow geocachers to hang around looking for a cache, what recourse have they got when some other "suspicious looking" group is hanging out? I'd think that they would want to enforce it consistently or not at all.

 

In any case, the cameras and signs would just plan make me feel uncomfortable, and I would just walk away. I have done that in other parking garages that had less warning signs. I still fail to see why this is such a good idea.

Link to comment

All of this about "no loitering" signs and security cameras relates to a different issue, which implies that (at least from now on, ideally, unless someone goes and reports a list of such existing rule-breaking geocaches) it should be heartily enforced: Geocaches may not be placed in parking garages. Period. Because they are private property.

 

But if that's not the case, then it's a preference, and no one is forcing people to find geocaches hidden in or on top of parking garages.

 

Nonetheless, once again, that was not the reason given for denial of publishing. It was the "commercial" nature of the city-owned parking garage. And if this is apparently a rule, then across the board geocaches should no longer be allowed in parking garages - whether for commercial businesses or city-owned (the reason given was no 'I don't think this cache should be published here', it was 'parkades are businesses, and as per guidelines this cannot be published').

I don't think that should be the case. I don't think city-owned parking garages should ever be considered a candidate case for soliciting a commercial business. Private property and permission is an entirely different issue. But that was not the issue presented here.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

'No loitering' signs are everywhere. Everywhere. If a location having a 'no loitering' sign is disallowed, then it should be a rule that geocaches cannot be published anywhere there is a no loitering sign.

 

You'd be amazed what proper permission can accomplish. :rolleyes:

 

general parking lots are private property too - players make the judgement call when placing, and reviewers when reviewing whether the location is appropriate)

 

You are correct. Unfortunately, most everyone overlooks permission issues on parking lots. However, since those parking lots don't have "No Loitering" signs, it's generally assumed adequate permission exists. But then again, we have an awful lot of bomb scares that might not occur if proper permission was obtained.

 

That was the reason for denial.

 

Reviewer: "As this cache is in a Parkade, and that parkade is a business this location can not be listed."

 

Still could of have been smoothed out if the other issues did not exist. Still can if you would just go ask permission to place the cache.

Link to comment
Still could of have been smoothed out if the other issues did not exist. Still can if you would just go ask permission to place the cache.

Nope, because this wasn't about permission. It was about the commercial nature of the geocache location.

If I'm told by appeals or the reviewer that I can place the cache if I get proper permission (this was not suggested to me at all), then I would consider that.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

All of this about "no loitering" signs and security cameras relates to a different issue

I understand that. I think that we all do. What we are trying to tell you is that, even if you took care of the commercialism part, that some of us would still not enjoy the cache. You are free to take that advice, or to ignore it. I think your questions of commercialism and parking ramps has been answered, has it not?
Link to comment

No Loitering signs would be a red flag to me that the property management doesn't want people there unless they are parking their car. Again, if you had explicit permission, then those concerns would be quelled.

 

I'm sure the No Loitering signs are there to give management sufficient reason to call the police on anybody that they feel may be looking to vandalize, break into, or steal cars. They want you to park your car and go to where you are going. If they allow geocachers to hang around looking for a cache, what recourse have they got when some other "suspicious looking" group is hanging out? I'd think that they would want to enforce it consistently or not at all.

 

In any case, the cameras and signs would just plan make me feel uncomfortable, and I would just walk away. I have done that in other parking garages that had less warning signs. I still fail to see why this is such a good idea.

 

Looks pretty much like what I said. And if the OP were to go ask for permission he could find out if they wanted to enforce that rule consistently. On the off chance they allow it, then he's golden. Otherwise, he would know quickly when they said no and he wouldn't be wasting time trying to get this published.

Link to comment
I understand that. I think that we all do. What we are trying to tell you is that, even if you took care of the commercialism part, that some of us would still not enjoy the cache. You are free to take that advice, or to ignore it.

I would enjoy it. I'm sure most if not all those who found other similar caches would enjoy it. What's your point? If you don't think you'd like it, you don't have to find it. So...

 

I think your questions of commercialism and parking ramps has been answered, has it not?

Then why's the discussion (about that topic) still going on? (not just by me) There's still disagreement, or a lack of clarity, which some people are pointing out. Until there's a resolution one way or another, or the thread gets locked, we're free to discuss, no?

man... getting deja vu, again!

 

Looks pretty much like what I said. And if the OP were to go ask for permission he could find out if they wanted to enforce that rule consistently. On the off chance they allow it, then he's golden. Otherwise, he would know quickly when they said no and he wouldn't be wasting time trying to get this published.

Once again, I was not told that was the issue. I was told it was commercial. If I just needed to get permission, I would consider it. But there's no saying that getting permission will allow it, because the issue was of commercial nature, not property ownership. Is getting permission from a "business" a possible override to the "commercial" guideline? News to me... if so, that would open a whole new can of worms...

 

Interestingly, I just came across this thread which I never saw until now. Very interesting. Still reading.

Link to comment

All of this about "no loitering" signs and security cameras relates to a different issue

I understand that. I think that we all do. What we are trying to tell you is that, even if you took care of the commercialism part, that some of us would still not enjoy the cache. You are free to take that advice, or to ignore it. I think your questions of commercialism and parking ramps has been answered, has it not?

 

Actually, I'm telling him that even once he takes care of the commercialism part he's still got the permission issue to deal with. Whether or not anyone will enjoy the cache or not is not at issue. If he wants to create a cache that no one likes, that is his prerogative. However, he still has to do so within the guidelines.

 

But I am afraid that due to the other issues sited by Keystone that he will likely fail on appeals.

Link to comment

Interestingly, I just came across this thread which I never saw until now. Very interesting. Still reading.

 

Hmmmm, so we can look for some NA logs if you lose your appeal? <_<

 

Basically, this thread is about sour grapes. And I guess I can do my part in not perpetuating it by not posting further. Don't know if I can control myself though. :anibad:

Link to comment

Well, the OP has stated that if that is an option, he will consider doing it. But that was never provided as an option before the publish request was locked and archived. And it was never given a chance or a nudge that it would resolve the issue. So while doing it now might reduce the time it takes to get it published in the future IF the commercial issue resolved, it solves nothing with the question at hand.

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...