Jump to content

Is a parkade a commercial institution?


thebruce0

Recommended Posts

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?"

 

Knowschad, I would not geocache a parking garage for a view. However, they do make for an interesting urban hunt due to the vertical possibilities. We had some exhausting fun on an 8 floor version. Once you start second guessing your thoroughness on a previous floor...you're toast. :)

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...

My point is to respectfully give my opinion. This is a forum, I can do that. If you don't like it, you can ignore it.

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.

 

Why did you feel that it was necessary to mention (once you had been told of the issue) to even mention that it was in a parkade? Would it not have been published, had you removed any mention of that? Or was it that once the reviewer was made aware of it, even removing reference to that fact would not have helped?

Link to comment

Well count me as surprised that mentioning security cameras on a cache page raises a red flag. Because if I had a nickel for every parking lot micro cache page I've seen with language such as "use extreme stealth so the employees don't see you", I'd have, I don't know, at least a five dollar bill in my wallet. OK, that's all I got, carry on. :D

Link to comment
Hmmmm, so we can look for some NA logs if you lose your appeal?

No. Why do you say that?

Basically, this thread is about sour grapes.

No. Why do you say that?

 

(warning, rant on)

Let me be clear. Again. I just find it ironic that since the previous curfuffle (which has nothing to do with the other thread I just linked, by the way), another in which I was not acting alone though was perhaps one of the louder voices, I decided I wouldn't be placing any more caches because the review process is just too much drama (as others have opted to do) -- but after relaxing a bit I thought to myself: nah, that seems an extreme move; take a breather, think up some neat ideas, ideas that would be safe and proper and viable and not breaking any guidelines, and just move on and have fun. So I go out, and place a cache after some work and scouting, thinking hey this could make a very nice, quaint, simple series; neat!. And then, where do I end up? Exactly the same place... honestly, this was not the result of some vendetta, or from coughing up some sour grapes. This was an honest attempt to move on, and just enjoy geocaching; placing them at least. But somehow I came across another judgement call on an issue that isn't clear, and faced with the questionable result of a cache review was so sped along and unclear that I didn't know what just happened. So I came to the forum, again (dumb move, perhaps?), to try to get some perspective. I find I'm not alone. Again. I would not be surprised if I'm now on some reviewer 'black list'. I'm not a trouble-maker. I just like clarity, consistency, and fairness.

(rant off)

 

1. I was told the geocache cannot be published because a parkade is a business (I was not asked if it was city owned or for a private commercial business)

2. I wasn't provided an alternative, other than moving the cache elsewhere (not sure how that's an alternative, it's effectively a different cache)

3. If I were told to get permission to have the cache published as a resolution, I would consider it (at this point there is no saying that will resolve the issue)

4. I'm waiting for appeals to respond. And I hope that the response is something that makes sense, and clarifies the issue for others here, and in the future.

X. I'm really a nice guy in person. Really. Cache publishing drama, tense forum discussions, and especially debates, just bring out my frustration and annoyance.

 

Why did you feel that it was necessary to mention (once you had been told of the issue) to even mention that it was in a parkade? Would it not have been published, had you removed any mention of that? Or was it that once the reviewer was made aware of it, even removing reference to that fact would not have helped?

Because I'm honest? And I did not know that would be an issue? A parkade is a noun. It's a place to park cars. So is a parking garage. And a parking lot. Many require fees to park (many caches explicitly state that) and expect foot traffic only to be going to or from vehicles, and nothing else. From my past geocaching experience, parkades seemed entirely fine and dandy, both by geocache content and description, and by the actual experience in finding, and didn't to the best of my knowledge break and geocache placement guidelines. So I was shocked to see "commercial institution" cited as the reason for denial.

 

No, if I knew parkades were off limits, I would not try to have it published by not mentioning the parkade at all. To me that's breaking the rules and plain dishonest. I didn't know the parkade would be an issue, and if it were simply this particular instance that were the issue for this reviewer, one would think I'd be given the opportunity to make a case for it. I was not. The reason was clear and straight forward, though a complete surprise, and to myself and numerous others, questionable.

 

I just wanted to find out, officially, if there was some rule against parkades, or that Groundspeak was now considering parking garages entirely off limits as commercial institutions. If that's the stance, then so be it. I just hope it's enforced, from this point on, or by reports (no, not by me).

 

...also, what Mr.Yuck said :ph34r::)

Link to comment

 

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.

 

the whole point is why has the "commercial" guideline been invoked in the first place, why not just deny the listing because its on private property and it need permission

 

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:

 

you missed the point of that thread, is not about "sour grapes" at all, personally i don't give a rats butt that i can't mention the name of some business in my cache listing, the point is that this is a guideline that its been n place way before 2 years that some of the caches have been out for and have been disabled so the CO can remove the store names...why now, 2 years later? and why are caches mentioning commercial places being published after that thread was posted?

 

why isn't there consistency in how caches are reviewed, and for the love of God don;t give me the "no precedent" BS, why do the reviewers smack back a standard c&p message that the cache is commercial and needs amending instead of spelling it out for us silly CO's but expect us to have a dialogue to try and fix it?

tell me up front what exactly i need to change and i will or if i think its not fair i will appeal it but don;t give me some general opinion..."this SEEMS to be commercial" and expect me to read minds and make the changes or continue a conversation for resolution...i thought they are busy as it is without launching into an extensive exchange of emails to clarify isuues

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

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.

 

the whole point is why has the "commercial" guideline been invoked in the first place, why not just deny the listing because its on private property and it need permission

 

Because the name of the parking garage was mentioned, per the OP's earlier post.

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.

 

------

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:

 

you missed the point of that thread, is not about "sour grapes" at all, personally i don't give a rats butt that i can't mention the name of some business in my cache listing, the point is that this is a guideline that its been n place way before 2 years that some of the caches have been out for and have been disabled so the CO can remove the store names...why now, 2 years later? and why are caches mentioning commercial places being published after that thread was posted?

 

I didn't say the thread he linked to was about sour grapes. I was saying THIS thread is about sour grapes because his cache was turned down.

 

But he did link to the other thread where the first post was about someone turning in a bunch of caches just because their cache was denied.

 

Given the OP's #3 in his original post,

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

and some of his other responses, I honestly wonder what the OP has planned when he loses his appeal.

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

and some of his other responses, I honestly wonder what the OP has planned when he loses his appeal.

Absolutely nothing. Except, if the resolution seems unreasonable, extreme disappointment on my part, and my pity for a game where cachers in the future who may face similar circumstances will have to go through similar denials without knowing beforehand. I hope that's not the case.

 

Clarity, fairness, and consistency. That doesn't mean retribution. That doesn't have to mean retroactive application of a new rule, unless it logically makes sense (like legal action being taken against Groundspeak, or clear and present danger to geocachers or nature, or simply because Groundspeak explicitly decides it must be applied retroactively)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

...not "extreme disappointment" at the lack of publishing, if that's the outcome of this.

Except, if the resolution seems unreasonable...

Publishing is not the only "reasonable" resolution. And in fact if it was published even if it broke a clear rule, that would not be reasonable either.

 

My concern was with the reason stated and the process in its denial. Thanks for the luck with appeals. :antenna:

Link to comment

The reviewer did not slam any doors in your face; rather, the reviewer showed you a new doorway to the appeals group. I'd rather go talk to the paid staffer than the volunteer who felt constrained to apply the guidelines as explained to you.

 

As cache review volumes increase, and as Groundspeak's customer service capabilities increase, expect to see more disputed submissions sent to appeals. It's what they're there for. Don't be put off by the referral.

 

If the cache page was locked, don't be put off by that, either. Some reviewers do this to preserve the page as it existed at the time referred to appeals. I've personally seen several cases where the owner fixed the page, and then wrote to appeals -- who then said "huh?"

Link to comment

Completely understandable :)

Nonetheless, the reason provided felt out of left field, and no alternative was given. It felt rash and quick and unclear. So yep, Just waiting on appeals. Hoping for, but not expecting, any change. :P

And I realize this wouldn't set a precedent for future publishes, but whatever happens it'll help clarify the reviewing and decision making process for cachers moving forward, in dealing with the validity of hides in or on parking garages. Hopefully.

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. <_<

 

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.

 

I was going to direct the OP to the thread in the Canada forum, started by one of our Ontario reviewers back in July, but he finally found it himself.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

The reviewer did not slam any doors in your face; rather, the reviewer showed you a new doorway to the appeals group. I'd rather go talk to the paid staffer than the volunteer who felt constrained to apply the guidelines as explained to you.

 

As cache review volumes increase, and as Groundspeak's customer service capabilities increase, expect to see more disputed submissions sent to appeals. It's what they're there for. Don't be put off by the referral.

 

If the cache page was locked, don't be put off by that, either. Some reviewers do this to preserve the page as it existed at the time referred to appeals. I've personally seen several cases where the owner fixed the page, and then wrote to appeals -- who then said "huh?"

 

That's a great explanation, and makes a heck of a lot of sense. I dunno though, there's just something about "going to appeals" that puts people off. :(

 

....extreme disappointment on my part...

 

I think we need to keep this in perspective a bit. This is a parking garage we're talking about :rolleyes:

 

 

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

Link to comment

The reviewer did not slam any doors in your face; rather, the reviewer showed you a new doorway to the appeals group. I'd rather go talk to the paid staffer than the volunteer who felt constrained to apply the guidelines as explained to you.

 

As cache review volumes increase, and as Groundspeak's customer service capabilities increase, expect to see more disputed submissions sent to appeals. It's what they're there for. Don't be put off by the referral.

 

If the cache page was locked, don't be put off by that, either. Some reviewers do this to preserve the page as it existed at the time referred to appeals. I've personally seen several cases where the owner fixed the page, and then wrote to appeals -- who then said "huh?"

 

That's a great explanation, and makes a heck of a lot of sense. I dunno though, there's just something about "going to appeals" that puts people off. :(

 

....extreme disappointment on my part...

 

I think we need to keep this in perspective a bit. This is a parking garage we're talking about :rolleyes:

 

 

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

Toque is spelled with an 'o'. :)

 

.

Link to comment

The reviewer did not slam any doors in your face; rather, the reviewer showed you a new doorway to the appeals group. I'd rather go talk to the paid staffer than the volunteer who felt constrained to apply the guidelines as explained to you.

 

As cache review volumes increase, and as Groundspeak's customer service capabilities increase, expect to see more disputed submissions sent to appeals. It's what they're there for. Don't be put off by the referral.

 

If the cache page was locked, don't be put off by that, either. Some reviewers do this to preserve the page as it existed at the time referred to appeals. I've personally seen several cases where the owner fixed the page, and then wrote to appeals -- who then said "huh?"

 

That's a great explanation, and makes a heck of a lot of sense. I dunno though, there's just something about "going to appeals" that puts people off. :(

 

....extreme disappointment on my part...

 

I think we need to keep this in perspective a bit. This is a parking garage we're talking about :rolleyes:

 

 

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

Toque is spelled with an 'o'. :)

 

.

 

Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.

Link to comment

 

Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.

 

 

You are forgiven my son. But you really must venture across the border more and become more Canadianized. Perhaps our upcoming BFL event.

 

:)

 

.

 

You're having a BFL event? How does that work, eh?

 

Too bad it's probably so far away, but I'm equipped and ready!

 

GC2YVBH Come on up.

 

.

Link to comment

 

Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.

 

 

You are forgiven my son. But you really must venture across the border more and become more Canadianized. Perhaps our upcoming BFL event.

 

:)

 

.

 

You're having a BFL event? How does that work, eh?

 

Too bad it's probably so far away, but I'm equipped and ready!

 

GC2YVBH Come on up.

 

.

Will you be serving poutine?

Link to comment

 

Sorry, eh? I did use Wikipedia, believe it or not.

 

 

You are forgiven my son. But you really must venture across the border more and become more Canadianized. Perhaps our upcoming BFL event.

 

:)

 

.

 

Mrs. Yuck works 2nd shift, and it doesn't matter if that's her weekend on or weekend off. I don't think I'll be running around in the woods at night on a Saturday 100 miles from home in a different Country. Despite the fact I have a new BFL I bought last month that takes a 9 volt battery, and has like 8 LED bulbs in it.

 

Will you be serving poutine?

 

That stuff is pretty good. Although I've only had it a couple times at a fast food place (whose name escapes me) at highway rest stops in Canada. Which is probably considered quite lame to real Poutine fans.

Link to comment

 

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

What exactly is the difference, then, between a Parkade and what we call a parking garage of a parking ramp here in the US of A?

 

No difference whatsover. DefinitionThey're just weird up there. I mean they think The Tragically Hip are like the Beatles or something. :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

What exactly is the difference, then, between a Parkade and what we call a parking garage of a parking ramp here in the US of A?

 

No difference whatsover. DefinitionThey're just weird up there. I mean they think The Tragically Hip are like the Beatles or something. :ph34r:

 

wth is Tragically Hip?...hoe can they even compete with deadmau5 ? :lol:

Link to comment

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

What exactly is the difference, then, between a Parkade and what we call a parking garage of a parking ramp here in the US of A?

 

No difference whatsover. DefinitionThey're just weird up there. I mean they think The Tragically Hip are like the Beatles or something. :ph34r:

 

Yeah, Tim Horton's is somehow better than Dunkin' Donuts, Lablatt Blue is better than Deschutes Brewery Black Butte, etc. I get it. :lol:

Link to comment

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

What exactly is the difference, then, between a Parkade and what we call a parking garage of a parking ramp here in the US of A?

 

No difference whatsover. DefinitionThey're just weird up there. I mean they think The Tragically Hip are like the Beatles or something. :ph34r:

 

Yeah, Tim Horton's is somehow better than Dunkin' Donuts, Lablatt Blue is better than Deschutes Brewery Black Butte, etc. I get it. :lol:

 

don't know about doughnuts but beer, please don't go there :anibad:

Link to comment

No, it is not. It is a Parkade. A word we should add to the list of words unknown outside of Canada, along with Tuque, Back Bacon, and The Tragically Hip. :lol:

 

What exactly is the difference, then, between a Parkade and what we call a parking garage of a parking ramp here in the US of A?

 

No difference whatsover. DefinitionThey're just weird up there. I mean they think The Tragically Hip are like the Beatles or something. :ph34r:

 

Yeah, Tim Horton's is somehow better than Dunkin' Donuts, Lablatt Blue is better than Deschutes Brewery Black Butte, etc. I get it. :lol:

 

don't know about doughnuts but beer, please don't go there :anibad:

 

Too late... I already did.

Link to comment

Well it seems this idea is completely thrown out the window now anyway.

 

Update:

Appeals provided a much better response than the cache reviewer.

* They said the commercial issue of the location would be addressed if pedestrians have full access to the parking garage for free (and if parking suggestions were not driving funds to the parkade).

 

However, as expected (they were also pointed to this discussion thread), they said they'd prefer permission from the owner of the parkade.

And so, after emailing up a nice, friendly, explanatory email to the contact address for the garage about geocaching, with details about the style and other examples, the response was simply (the one sentence response paraphrased), 'unable to grant permission due to reasons of liability'.

 

*sigh*

 

It makes me wonder if all the other parkade/garage caches had to go through the same level of permission-requesting from their reviewers. (aside: I also happened to come across another parking garage cache published on the 20th, at a mall, prompting me to wonder if they had to get permission too)

 

But oh well.

 

I'm not going to bother with the series I was planning. Maybe I'll just stick with publishing challenges from now on. Publishing geocaches in city bounds (and/or dealing with the review process in general) is just far too complicated these days, at least around here. The only fun I seem to be getting recently in geocaching is going out and finding them, and even that was tainted a bit recently. :signalviolin:

 

Good discussion. ...at least this concern about parking garage viability was brought out into the open. YMMV

See? I can cede a position if the resolution is reasonable.

:ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

See? I can cede a position if the resolution is reasonable.

:ph34r:

:lol: You mean, you can cede a position when there is nowhere else to go, don't you?

 

As to other garage hides, it is possible that, like what happened to cemetery caches, perhaps they are now requiring explicit permission for that type of hide. Time will tell.

Link to comment
You mean, you can cede a position when there is nowhere else to go, don't you?

Depends what you mean by "nowhere else to go". One of my points was supported due to appeals essentially agreeing with the position regarding the commercial nature of the parkade. And I said that I completely adhere to private property concerns - if it's private property, No; if asking for permission, it may be granted, great. If permission was required, and not granted, I'd therefore adhere to that. In this situation, I had no idea permission would be required for parkades since I'd found a number of parking garage caches before.

 

I feel completely fine with the outcome of this, logically and reasonably speaking - as opposed to not understanding the actions of a reviewer (in this case I believe they made a wrong judgement, supported by the response of appeals) and having no reasonable explanation for the action (beyond 'just because').

Everything here, IMO, was resolved. The roadblock was simply in that the parkade won't allow it. That's fine with me. Maybe others would.

 

As to other garage hides, it is possible that, like what happened to cemetery caches, perhaps they are now requiring explicit permission for that type of hide. Time will tell.

If they are, that's what I should have been asked to provide.

Cemeteries require permission now too? I wonder if Waterloo region's resident cemetery hider Dundee Jim knows that or already gets permission from all the yards in which he's hiding them :P I suppose that makes sense, given the nature of the property. It's unfortunate for the "way things used to be", but that is a result of the evolution of the pastime, no? One only hopes that if that's the case, then it's the case globally (or at least where it's known to not officially be an issue).

 

Ah, politics.

Link to comment

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.

 

 

There was a cache placed in the parking garage at my work a while back; I knew it wouldn't last long, because I knew that the property manager here would never have given permission.

 

It actually lasted longer than I would have expected, but ended exactly as I suspected it would: with cachers being confronted by security, reporting their experience in their logs, and the cache being quickly archived.

Link to comment

See? I can cede a position if the resolution is reasonable.

:ph34r:

:lol: You mean, you can cede a position when there is nowhere else to go, don't you?

 

As to other garage hides, it is possible that, like what happened to cemetery caches, perhaps they are now requiring explicit permission for that type of hide. Time will tell.

 

Or perhaps those parkades don't have "No Loitering" signs or video equipment, or if they do the CO didn't put it all in the description and make is so the reviewer had to deal with it. :anibad:

Link to comment

See? I can cede a position if the resolution is reasonable.

:ph34r:

:lol: You mean, you can cede a position when there is nowhere else to go, don't you?

 

As to other garage hides, it is possible that, like what happened to cemetery caches, perhaps they are now requiring explicit permission for that type of hide. Time will tell.

 

Or perhaps those parkades don't have "No Loitering" signs or video equipment, or if they do the CO didn't put it all in the description and make is so the reviewer had to deal with it. :anibad:

 

Nope, just leave it between the police/security guards and some poor slob searching for the cache.

Link to comment

See? I can cede a position if the resolution is reasonable.

:ph34r:

:lol: You mean, you can cede a position when there is nowhere else to go, don't you?

 

As to other garage hides, it is possible that, like what happened to cemetery caches, perhaps they are now requiring explicit permission for that type of hide. Time will tell.

 

Or perhaps those parkades don't have "No Loitering" signs or video equipment, or if they do the CO didn't put it all in the description and make is so the reviewer had to deal with it. :anibad:

 

Nope, just leave it between the police/security guards and some poor slob searching for the cache.

 

I wasn't passing judgement on whether it is right or wrong. Just explaining why the recent ones could have been published without asking for explicit permission.

 

I'm a huge fan of explicit permission, personally. Most of these types of issues are resolved when you just ask the property owner about putting a cache out.

 

I think we both know that there are a lot of caches out there that would not exist if permission was asked, but blind eyes are turned to them.

 

Most of those never cause any problems. But every once in a while we get the bomb squad and police run-in threads.

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

 

Not so fast. Getting permission in writing doesn't inform the general public that use (and park their expensive luxury SUV i) the garage that there is a geocache located there. If they see someone searching around pillars, elevator shafts, sticking their hand in various places, and hanging around the location for several mninutes they're going to call the cops. Perhaps after the cops arrive they *might* contact the person responsible for the garage, but more likely, if the located the container and deem it suspicious they're going to escalate the manner to the bomb squad. Eventually, everyone involved might find out that written permission was granted, but there are a lot of potential bad outcomes that might happen first.

 

Sometimes a cache which meets all of the guidelines, including obtaining explicit permission is still a bad idea.

Link to comment

Sometimes a cache which meets all of the guidelines, including obtaining explicit permission is still a bad idea.

 

That quote is "signature worthy".

 

As for the situation in this thread, I think the outcome is correct from the perspective of Appeals and the CO.

 

For me most parkade (I had no idea that was a Canada-specific term!) caches end up straight on the Ignore list, I've seen enough logs mentioning issues with security guards to make them not worth my while.

Link to comment
For me most parkade (I had no idea that was a Canada-specific term!) caches end up straight on the Ignore list, I've seen enough logs mentioning issues with security guards to make them not worth my while.

And that's perfectly fine for you to do in your caching habits... I've also done many and not had any problems, and I like them. Experiences are all over the board. If everyone acts appropriately and owners choose their locations wisely, none of this would be an issue. Alas, c'est la vie.

 

Also didn't know parkade was a "Canadian" term... :blink:

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...