Jump to content

Camping events logging requirements


Recommended Posts

Should it be a requirement to camp to be able to log a camping event?

 

Is it too much to ask that someone be required to actually camp overnight to be allowed to log the event. Events are open to all like all caches but some caches have special requirements, like being able to scuba dive or climb a cliff. So to log the event should you have to stay?

 

Ok it's not a huge issue but it's such a shame when people turn up to camping events, grab the cache sheet and then are never seen again. they miss the opportunity to actually experience the actual event.

 

There are way and means methods; like 2am events but why cant we just list the event honestly? We may as well have a log book at the entrance to the camp site for those people that just want the icon :ph34r:

Link to comment

We started by travelling, calling in and staying for an hour or so according to who was on site and chatting and then driving home :lol:

We attended a number of events in N Wales with Marzipancurtis one of Liane's Nuneaten way but that has led to us buying another caravan ( after scrapping our old one) and joining in the fun and what fun it is as well LOL

The rest is history :)

 

I know a number of cachers who are either buying or thinking of buying camping gear so they can join in as well after hearing the stories.

 

Plus if we didn't attend camping events we wouldn't have met the much wider range of caching friends we now haveand look forward to meeting :D

 

Anyone who calls in for a smillie misses out on the experience

Link to comment

It's as bad as saying, I want to log a scuba dive cache, could the owner please bring the container to a nearby pub so I can sign.

 

Really curious regarding the validity of this rule and its interpretations as I believe there have been women only events and so on in America which might seem to suggest its a vague rule open to interpretation.

 

I'm trying to make a point about inclusion not exclusion , people taking part not making the event adapt to their requirements

Link to comment

I think it comes down to the fact that (as far as Groundspeak is concerned) a camping event is just another event cache and so the basic Guidelines for event caches have to be followed. For those cachers attending, there's no requirement other than to attend, and that can be for 30 seconds or 3 days. I suppose anything else comes under the heading of ALR.

 

Those who would like it to be different could put in their proposal to Groundspeak for a new type of event to be recognised as a Camping Event with the requirement to actually spend (a specified length of?) time in a tent.

 

(I have a vague recollection that someone did put in exactly this suggestion a couple of years back but haven't done a search for the link.)

 

MrsB :)

Link to comment

Heaven forbid that rules are broken or interpreted ...

 

So it would follow that it would be ok to say that the logbook will only be available between the hours of 2am and 3am and that the logbook is hidden on the edge of the campsite with its co ords being disclosed at a random time during the preceding day.

 

Would this be within the interpreted rules? :ph34r:

Link to comment

If people are happy to come along for an hour or so but are unable or unwilling to stay for the whole night, why should they be denied the log? It's not going to make any difference to the event.

 

If you want to make the event a bit more rewarding for those lucky enough to be able to camp overnight, then supply delicious free food. If you want it to be even more rewarding than that, make it a free bar.

 

I think that special requirements and punishments such as you suggest are a good way of making sure that there are fewer people attending. That's about the only effect. If I was considering turning up (and camping) and saw rules and regulations about logging start to crop up I'd give the whole thing a miss. I'd worry that the event is going to feature the log book as the main attraction.

Link to comment

I've been to a few events. not camping though. perish the thought.

I'll stay anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of hours.

I signed the log. I attended. I left. for whatever reason.

Not all events are worth a long stay. some are worth leaving as quickly as possible.

Just as at any social get together, some people you meet are quite boring.

I either leave or drink more. Better to leave me thinks.

Link to comment

I think that we are missing a major part of the issue here. For an event organiser to organise a camping event they must either

a] find a campsite that allows non-campers on site

or

b] make the event elsewhere with the camping not actually the event.

 

Option a] is often difficult to achieve which forces the organiser to go for option b] This creates extra work for the organiser who has undoubtedly already got enough to deal with and generally detracts from the purpose/theme of the event.

 

I fully understand the wish for events to be inclusive of all, but the reality of it is that many/most events will exclude some. For instance an event at a pub is likely to exclude anyone with strong anti-alcohol beliefs or if there are steps to negotiate this may well exclude disabled cachers and I'm sure that we can all think of other reasons why people may be excluded.

 

I personally have no real issue if someone wants to spend 30 seconds at one of my events to get a :), as it is they who are missing out IMHO. But why should I have to jump through additional hoops to make the event fully inclusive when other types of events don't?

 

Wherever possible I do try to find a campsite that does allow non-campers and do encourage them to attend, they often remark that if they had known how good it was that they would have camped. Who knows, they may even become camping cachers :rolleyes: . However the last time I failed to do this we had the obligatory pub meet and the only ones who attended were campers, I was well :mad: , what a waste of time and effort.

Edited by Mad H@ter
Link to comment

Should it be a requirement to camp to be able to log a camping event?

 

... but it's such a shame when people turn up to camping events, grab the cache sheet and then are never seen again.

 

Grab the cache sheet???

 

I thought events were about socialising with other cachers? That's one of the reasons I never set caches for my events anymore :):)

 

If you need to rely on a new set of caches to bring people to your event, it might be that your event needs attention ;)

And if you do hide a load of new caches for your event, you've no-one but yourself to blame if you attract a few people that only attend to sign the log and run off to find those caches.... :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Link to comment

Caches set for events....like piratemania then?

 

I think mad hater phrased it far better than I did. Why should the event organisers for camping events have extra requirements on them to be able to list them? If an event is women only or requires a trip on a paid ferry crossing to an island they are listed and if u are male or not happy to pay too bad.

 

If it happens that its possible for non campers to attend and The person setting it is happy for them to log then fine. If they can't or its felt u must camp then that's one smiley they can't have.

There's nothing stopping non campers organising their own event at a Pub nearby .

Link to comment

I think mad hater phrased it far better than I did. Why should the event organisers for camping events have extra requirements on them to be able to list them?

I thought you were saying that you support extra requirements for attendees? Such as not being able to log the event unless they are there at 2 a.m.?

 

That seems the opposite of what Mad H@ter was saying. He was making the point that exclusive events should be allowed, e.g. on a campsite which doesn't allow non-camping visitors.

 

I suspect the rule is there to discourage events that are deliberately exclusive. For example; only members of a particular 4x4 club are allowed, or only people who know the organiser, or only members of the Labour Party, or only cachers with more than 1000 finds.

A non-visitor campsite event is less clear cut, as a lot of people have tents or can borrow them; but it's still the same principle.

 

With no rules you would have the same half-dozen cachers meeting every week at the same place and logging an "event" every time, even though others in the area would like to take part but are excluded. Sort of OK but not really an event.

 

Personally I think that events shouldn't be "caches" anyway and should be kept separately as dates for your diary instead; perhaps you could add an "attended" note and have a count of events attended but it would make no difference to your overall "find" count. In fact it'd be better just to have details on Facebook with a simple link from the geocaching site's "Events" section. That way you could even get muggles to come along as well. And if you want to make it exclusive; then go ahead. Once it's not a cache type there's no need for restrictions, as it's not going to clutter up the local cache list anyway.

Link to comment

There was a weekend camping event near us recently, logging requirements were that you had to attend the night adventure in the woods to find the log book. As there was no nearby accommodation and we don't wish to camp the event was not available to us so we simply found something else to do.

 

If it is a camping event where do you stop with the logging requirements? Only if under canvas, no day visitors?

 

There are also pub events midweek - Ok for the locals, but no good for those who travel and also excludes those with children.

 

Evening meal events - that excludes dogs?

 

Non wheelchair friendly events.

 

Then there are the hill walking events, again only suitable for the fit and kit equipped cachers.

 

Plenty choice of types of events to go around, and all with reasonable logging requirements.

 

You are never going to stop those who 'pop' in for 5 minutes for what ever reason, there is no time limit on events that I know of?

 

Surely as long as the logging requirements are reasonable and sensible, is not variety the spice?

 

Its only one smiley - Its not about the numbers - Is it? :lol:

Link to comment

I think mad hater phrased it far better than I did. Why should the event organisers for camping events have extra requirements on them to be able to list them?

I thought you were saying that you support extra requirements for attendees? Such as not being able to log the event unless they are there at 2 a.m.?

 

That seems the opposite of what Mad H@ter was saying. He was making the point that exclusive events should be allowed, e.g. on a campsite which doesn't allow non-camping visitors.

 

I suspect the rule is there to discourage events that are deliberately exclusive. For example; only members of a particular 4x4 club are allowed, or only people who know the organiser, or only members of the Labour Party, or only cachers with more than 1000 finds.

A non-visitor campsite event is less clear cut, as a lot of people have tents or can borrow them; but it's still the same principle.

 

With no rules you would have the same half-dozen cachers meeting every week at the same place and logging an "event" every time, even though others in the area would like to take part but are excluded. Sort of OK but not really an event.

 

Personally I think that events shouldn't be "caches" anyway and should be kept separately as dates for your diary instead; perhaps you could add an "attended" note and have a count of events attended but it would make no difference to your overall "find" count. In fact it'd be better just to have details on Facebook with a simple link from the geocaching site's "Events" section. That way you could even get muggles to come along as well. And if you want to make it exclusive; then go ahead. Once it's not a cache type there's no need for restrictions, as it's not going to clutter up the local cache list anyway.

 

Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself clearly enough for you to understand my point. The argumentative additional logging requirements would be the only way that a camping event could be made exclusive if the current requirements are continued.

Every type of cache limits those who can log it.5* caches stop people from logging them. Events on islands with limited or costly ferry rides stop people attending.

If you don't like a type of cache then don't do them.

People being allowed to log camping caches is the oddity. There is no requirement for owners of 5* caches to have a specific day every year that they bring them to a local pub for the rest of us to log them.:-)

Link to comment

I have friends who don't camp but have attended camping events - and stayed for most of the evening before toddling off to more "luxurious" accomodation Just their personal choice but why should they not get a smiley for the event?

 

And tbh if there was a 2am requirement even if I was camping I'd prob miss the logbook availability as me and the pup would be sound asleep!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment

Camping is expensive - by the time you've invested in a tent, sleeping bags, cooking equipment etc then you've probably shelled out well over £100. Multiply that up for a family and the costs are significant.

 

Lots of cachers I know who now camp at events started off as day visitors. It's a sensible way of finding out if you are going to enjoy the camping scene without spending a fortune of something you might not enjoy.

 

I personally think that the focus of a camping event should be the camping, but would never exclude a day visitor. If someone wants to come along and only stay for 10 minutes - isn't that their loss not mine? In my experience this is very rare anyway as most people do join in.

 

It would very interesting to know if an event such as Piratemania would have gone mega this year without the great support of the many day visitors. I doubt it.

Link to comment

When all is said and done there does seem to be a general differing of opinions and some people seem to be unsure of their exact position on the matter. Which is what is good about a public forum where those who interpret and implement the rule can come and explain and maybe be persuaded in an open forum and not behind closed doors.

It's not about lambasting the reviewers, who do a difficult role, but we've seen that when some "rules" that appear to be set in stone; like using pubs as directions, are looked at and investigated they tend to fall apart.

This sort of thing should be done on here, not in quiet chats, not in meetings that involve only a select few, not as a result of quiet rumblings. People should be able and honest with their full feelings and have those looked at by those who implement the rules. Then a discussion can be held that resolves the matter.

 

I'll say it again as there appears to have been some deliberate misinterpretation of the thread.

There are times that it's not possible to have non campers attend a camping event or any other type of event for that matter that involves paying money for mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, boat rides etc. It should be ok for those events to still be listed and those people who don't wish to pay don't have to log. Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day? Yes they only fool themselves and if the event setter hasn't had to go out of their way to accomodate their refusal to take part then so be it, It's just why should the event planner be placed in the position of having to go to the extra work for those that don't wish to actually take part. :huh:

Link to comment

Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?

I'm a little confused by your phrasing, but I think I understand your point.

I think that what you're saying is that an organiser should be allowed to arrange an event just for the people participating in the main activity, without having to make extra allowance for people who just want to attend.

 

My reply is that the whole "Event Cache" concept is flawed, in that people want to add the event "cache" to their find count and it's therefore seen as another cache type. Really it's a social gathering (not a cache of any type), and the geocaching.com website isn't set up to handle these very well. So in trying to fit this square peg into a round hole, artificial rules have to be made up which make things unnecessarily complicated.

 

Make them "Geocachers' Socials", don't list them as "caches" but have a separate section, don't bother having them reviewed, and allow any sort of entry requirements (but advertise these in advance). That would be my solution. Until some fairly radical change is made event caches will always be unsatisfactory.

Link to comment

Hi all

 

The requirement to have an open to all element as part of a 'camping event' goes back a few years when the reviewers at the time had a massive complaint from someone who lived a few minutes from the campsite but was denied attendance because, quite rightly, they were unwilling to camp.

 

There is no such thing as a camping event as far as Groundspeak is concerned. There are only events at campsites. As they are event caches you cannot compare them to regular caches that have specific requirements such as scuba diving.

 

Events are the social aspect of the hobby and excluding people just because they won't/can't camp is just not on. There are plenty of camping events that manange to comply with this with no complaints from the organisers. I have my own annual camping event but I set aside 2 hours from the whole weekend for a bbq/drinks. That's all it takes. Just an hour or two. You don't even have to do anything special.

You could all just be drinking round the camp fire as long as there is a set time. No effort involved there.

 

This is the current position of the reviewers as representatives of Groundspeak. The only way it will change is if TPTB tell us to.

 

If you want to effect a change please use the feedback site and get the votes in for your idea. They will seriously consider it. I just can't guarantee the outcome.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

Link to comment

Thanks Paul, good to get a reply.

 

A couple of points. Could you explain what criteria the reviewers use to decide which changes the community want they they will raise themselves with Jeremy and those that they cast to the vagrancies of the feedback forum?

 

And I'd like to try and understand how these events are ok, this country and the USA that require a ferry ride, surely to be the same criteria the actual event would require there to be an hour or two, that's all, on the dockside of the mainland for those who cant or wont use the ferry?

 

gc30d5a

 

gc2r688

 

gc2rjmz

 

And this one specifically can say that you must come over the night before or own your own boat:

gc22c87

Link to comment

The requirement to have an open to all element as part of a 'camping event' goes back a few years when the reviewers at the time had a massive complaint from someone who lived a few minutes from the campsite but was denied attendance because, quite rightly, they were unwilling to camp.

It was my understanding that this event GCWDHD started this "rulling" when an overseas cacher complained, I may be wrong though.

Events are the social aspect of the hobby and excluding people just because they won't/can't camp is just not on.

But it's OK to exclude cachers for other reasons such as disability, religion, wealth etc?

There are plenty of camping events that manange to comply with this with no complaints from the organisers.

Being one of the longest standing camping event organisers with a fair amount of experience IMHO I feel qualified to respond to this. I don't complain any more regarding this as I was put well and truly in my place by a reviewer when I complained some years ago, so not worth the grief. Yes I do manage to comply with this rule (guideline?) and I'm more than happy to (and prefer to) make it open to all, but it is often very difficult to find a campsite willing to accept non-campers.

I have my own annual camping event but I set aside 2 hours from the whole weekend for a bbq/drinks. That's all it takes. Just an hour or two. You don't even have to do anything special.

You could all just be drinking round the camp fire as long as there is a set time. No effort involved there.

If you are organising a big event with lots of organised activities, then yes this could be a big deal, however a smaller event with no activities probably not.

This is the current position of the reviewers as representatives of Groundspeak. The only way it will change is if TPTB tell us to.

 

If you want to effect a change please use the feedback site and get the votes in for your idea. They will seriously consider it. I just can't guarantee the outcome.

Why is it that UK reviewers are often so inflexible and unwilling to listen and/or help the UK community?

It often seems that we have more self imposed rules/guidelines than other countries and sadly these often appear to be unwritten or well hidden. I have even heard on the grapevine that there are some reviewers that are getting a little concerned about this situation.

 

AND PLEASE before reviewers start replying with how hard they work and how they have lives outside etc etc, please don't, let's just stick to the topic and not detract from it.

We all know how hard you work and really do appreciate it and I for one would not want the job. This IS NOT reviewer knocking, it is just a plea to explain and/or help.

Link to comment

I've been watching this thread with interest over the last few days, and as the organiser of 4 previous camping events (and responsible for selecting the camp site for the Harrogate Mega Event) I thought I'd add my own two penneth....

 

One of the hardest things you have to do when selecting a site is finding a site that will allow day visitors, and then ensuring that they don't charge for visitors - most do!! We all know that you're not "allowed" to charge people for attending an event (although charging for camping is ok.)

This is really difficult - firstly, not all sites will accept groups of people, not even when you reassure them that we're not reprobates who will stay up drinking all night making loads of noise (well, not all of us!! :blink: )

 

Secondly, organising a bit that's "open to all" is hard... a lot of organisers get around this by suggesting a BBQ for an hour or so in the evening, but 1) if it's great weather people tend to stay out longer caching and are not back for said event, and 2) if the weather is poor, many will either stay in their tents and have a "family meal" or will drive out to a local pub to eat, therefore missing said BBQ.

 

It's easy to say that you should therefore have the "event" part in the local pub... again, if it's nice, people don't want to eat / congregate in a pub, and would rather stay out caching, or after paying for camping fees and getting there, don't want to have to fork out for drinks / meals etc, and would prefer an easy meal back on site.

 

The big gripe I have is when people turn up for 5 minutes, say hello and go.... then log the event. In my view, they've not attended!!!

I was at an event once when a well known cacher simply drove onto the campsite, drove around it while waving to us, and drove off. 30 minutes later I had a notification on my phone that he'd "attended" the event. To me, that was not attending!

 

Personally, I think camping events are the best part of caching. I go to the event, socialise, cache with people I'd not usually get the chance to cache with, swap daft stories, share a meal with new friends and catch up with old friends. They're not about walking on to the campsite and sayig hello, then going.

 

I understand the comment made by *Mouse* - would Piratemania have gone mega without the day visitors, probably not, and I agree, but it's not about whether something goes Mega or not... it's about going somewhere for a weekend (or longer) and enjoying the company of like minded folk.

 

I don't want to see camping events restricted to just those that want to camp, but I DO think that there needs to be some kind of change so that people are required to stay for longer than 5 minutes!

 

I HAVE been to a camping event where I didn't camp. However, I got there early, had lunch on site, cached with folk, stayed for several cuppas, and left late evening as we had an 80 mile journey home to make.

 

Camping events are an anomaly, there's no real set out "rules" (or guidelines!!) and I really think there should be.

 

This is a topic of conversation that's been rumbling around camping events this summer, and I know several organisers are a little fed up of the extra "event" bit. When you're organising a camping event, you really don't want the added hassle of the "open to all" bit!

 

Campers themselves are always keen to see new people come along, take part and enjoy, and I know that attending as a day visitor can encourage people to camp "next time" but there really needs to be a bit of a crack down on those that stay for 5 minutes and go! <_<

 

Anyway - there we are... that's what I think!! :lol:

Edited by HazelS
Link to comment

We all know that you're not "allowed" to charge people for attending an event

 

Are you sure about that?

I can recall at least two events published in the past year that have involved admission charges - and AFAIK you're allowed to charge people to cover your own out of pocket expenses - as long as you tell them beforehand.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with people not showing up for 5 minutes and still claiming they attended, but....

 

I've held a few camping events myself, and it's never been an issue for me. Maybe I've been lucky with the sites I've chosen - or maybe the type of campsites I prefer also don't mind day visitors?

 

As has been pointed out, there's no such thing as a "camping event". There are events, full stop. And if we choose to camp and invite others to join us during an event, well maybe we should also accept that there will be additional burdens we need to take on board? Just as there are difference between well thought out and planned caches, and film pots in hedges, we get our reward in heaven from the happy smiling faces of those that attended - not the people who cba!

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

We all know that you're not "allowed" to charge people for attending an event

 

Are you sure about that?

I can recall at least two events published in the past year that have involved admission charges - and AFAIK you're allowed to charge people to cover your own out of pocket expenses - as long as you tell them beforehand.

 

You're right Tim, but charging people as a day visitor to a camping event, I believe, is a no no. I know because I asked a reviewer when I did my first Cheshire Camping event.

 

This just reitterates the point that there are no set out guidelines... it really does seem to be "at the discretion" of the reviewers, and they all seem to have differing stances on the "rules."

 

Surely it's time we just got some guidelines / rules / whatever in place to stop the ambiguity!

Link to comment

I have added my response to Keehotee's request (and quoted one of the events here).

 

I think that rather than being to the detriment of events, it could improve some.

 

What is this whole "event smileys" thing about anyway? I know that many of us care about how many caches and so on we've found, but events? Does anyone actually care that you've attended 43 events in the last 6 years?

 

I've often found too that the people that complain about events, ALRs and suchlike are the ones that have found 000s of caches, put out 3 and never held an event.

 

Out of interest, can someone quote me the rule that says that event caches must be open to all?

 

I've been reading the new, amended rules and they state as follows:

 

Event caches are gatherings that are organized by geocachers and are open to other geocachers. They are submitted at least two weeks prior to the event so that potential attendees will have sufficient notice to make plans. Events are published no more than three months prior. Some events are published six months prior if an overnight stay is expected or if the event is designed to attract a regional or international group of geocachers.

 

I've bolded the words "open to other geocachers". It doesn't say "open to all geocachers" neither does it say "open to some geocachers", however, the inference of open to all has been removed.

 

Let's say that 'cacher X puts out a new event.

 

This event is at the top of an open building, hundreds of feet in the air, I wouldn't be able to attend. I don't like heights.

 

So there you have it. I can't go. It's not open to me.

 

And I'll leave this one here.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4f7925b1-413b-400b-8db8-5759c1d891ef

 

It's called the "Boat only" event and not only implies, but confirms this.

 

From the cache page:

 

As the name suggests, the event log is only accessible by Boat though,

 

I no longer have a boat, so I can't come.

Link to comment

...

The big gripe I have is when people turn up for 5 minutes, say hello and go.... then log the event. In my view, they've not attended!!!

I was at an event once when a well known cacher simply drove onto the campsite, drove around it while waving to us, and drove off. 30 minutes later I had a notification on my phone that he'd "attended" the event. To me, that was not attending!

...

I don't want to see camping events restricted to just those that want to camp, but I DO think that there needs to be some kind of change so that people are required to stay for longer than 5 minutes!

Campers themselves are always keen to see new people come along, take part and enjoy, and I know that attending as a day visitor can encourage people to camp "next time" but there really needs to be a bit of a crack down on those that stay for 5 minutes and go!

...

I know that this is your opinion and I respect that, but can you explain the logic behind obliging people to stay for a set minimum period? If people turn up for five minutes, how does that cause a problem?

It might seem a little impolite, but I can't see why you should need to "gripe" about it particularly. What if they turn up for twenty minutes - would that be fine?

 

What if I turn up at the start but you're too busy to notice me and after half an hour I get bored, sign the event log and go home?

In any case what difference does it make whether people log it or not? At least if you have a few more "attended" logs it looks like it was more successful.

 

Camping events are an anomaly, there's no real set out "rules" (or guidelines!!) and I really think there should be.

Events are an anomaly anyway, aren't they?

Link to comment

 

I'll say it again as there appears to have been some deliberate misinterpretation of the thread.

There are times that it's not possible to have non campers attend a camping event or any other type of event for that matter that involves paying money for mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, boat rides etc. It should be ok for those events to still be listed and those people who don't wish to pay don't have to log. Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day? Yes they only fool themselves and if the event setter hasn't had to go out of their way to accomodate their refusal to take part then so be it, It's just why should the event planner be placed in the position of having to go to the extra work for those that don't wish to actually take part. :huh:

 

It's great that you enjoy camping but why do feel that you have to coerce other people to join you?

Link to comment

 

You're right Tim, but charging people as a day visitor to a camping event, I believe, is a no no. I know because I asked a reviewer when I did my first Cheshire Camping event.

 

 

i don't know where you got that idea from, but its not any different than placing a cache or holding an event in a park that charges an admission fee....YOU are not personally charging anyone, they have a choice whether to attend or not

 

 

 

But it's OK to exclude cachers for other reasons such as disability, religion, wealth etc?

 

 

you're kidding right?

Link to comment

 

You're right Tim, but charging people as a day visitor to a camping event, I believe, is a no no. I know because I asked a reviewer when I did my first Cheshire Camping event.

 

 

i don't know where you got that idea from, but its not any different than placing a cache or holding an event in a park that charges an admission fee....YOU are not personally charging anyone, they have a choice whether to attend or not

 

 

Er.. like I said above.. I asked a reviewer!! You're not a UK cacher, we must have slightly different rules, we CANNOT place caches in places where an admission fee is payable!

Link to comment

 

You're right Tim, but charging people as a day visitor to a camping event, I believe, is a no no. I know because I asked a reviewer when I did my first Cheshire Camping event.

 

 

i don't know where you got that idea from, but its not any different than placing a cache or holding an event in a park that charges an admission fee....YOU are not personally charging anyone, they have a choice whether to attend or not

 

 

Er.. like I said above.. I asked a reviewer!! You're not a UK cacher, we must have slightly different rules, we CANNOT place caches in places where an admission fee is payable!

 

Hazel, yes we can - as long as they're "not for profit" organisations such as National Trust. There's even an attribute for "Access or Parking Fee" fee-yes.gif

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

... and my understanding is that an event organiser is allowed to make a small/reasonable charge for an event if it's to cover their costs e.g. asking for £1 each from each attendee to cover the cost of booking a room, or a contribution to cover costs of providing food for a BBQ - But it must be just to cover their costs, not to make a profit.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

or a contribution to cover costs of providing food for a BBQ - But it must be just to cover their costs, not to make a profit.

 

 

Thats a big can of worms you're opening ;)

 

Are they allowed to insist that you eat from their BBQ and pay for it or can you log your attendance without eating ;)

Link to comment

or a contribution to cover costs of providing food for a BBQ - But it must be just to cover their costs, not to make a profit.

 

 

Thats a big can of worms you're opening ;)

 

Are they allowed to insist that you eat from their BBQ and pay for it or can you log your attendance without eating ;)

 

"'Ere! I contributed £2.50 for this BBQ and all that's left is one burnt Tesco Value sausage! Who took the last slice of sirloin steak?" :mad:

Link to comment

 

"'Ere! I contributed £2.50 for this BBQ and all that's left is one burnt Tesco Value sausage! Who took the last slice of sirloin steak?" :mad:

 

Never mind the money you can't serve meat, that's discrimination if you're a vegan ;)

Edited by uktim
Link to comment

 

I'll say it again as there appears to have been some deliberate misinterpretation of the thread.

There are times that it's not possible to have non campers attend a camping event or any other type of event for that matter that involves paying money for mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, boat rides etc. It should be ok for those events to still be listed and those people who don't wish to pay don't have to log. Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day? Yes they only fool themselves and if the event setter hasn't had to go out of their way to accomodate their refusal to take part then so be it, It's just why should the event planner be placed in the position of having to go to the extra work for those that don't wish to actually take part. :huh:

 

It's great that you enjoy camping but why do feel that you have to coerce other people to join you?

 

Who's trying to coerce anyone? They are the ones that are asking to come to a camping event.

 

 

But we're yet to get a decent reply as to why it's ok to have people have to go on a boat and pay for that and for the admittance to islands or estates, it's ok for americans to have events that require people to own boats or stay overnight for their events. No one seems to be able to point out exactly where it says that it's not allowed for camping events to say that you have to pay for admission and camp.

Only camping events, and only in this country, is it necessary to have the event in a location that is accessible for free by anyone who might want to drop in for a few seconds because they have the right to log the cache. Boat trips are not required to have the actual event on the quayside for a couple of hours, events within payable parks are not required to hold the actual event in the free car park or nearby for a couple of hours. They are published without problem all around the world.

 

UK campers have a special seperate rule that states that they must always have free and complete access to all cachers regardless if they wish to camp or not. Yet this rule doesn't appear to be written down anywhere.

 

We do not need to post a request on the feedback forum as there is nothing stopping other reviewers from publishing these other events and no obvious rule that stops cachers publishing camping only events. So there's no need for Jeremy to be asked anything. Just have the same rule applied to us that the other events have.

Link to comment

 

Who's trying to coerce anyone? They are the ones that are asking to come to a camping event.

 

 

If it's not about coercion why do you ask

 

"Is it too much to ask that someone be required to actually camp overnight to be allowed to log the event."

 

and

 

"Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?"

 

There's a huge difference between using a ferry as a form of transport to get to an event and someone trying to coerce you into stopping for longer than you want to.

 

If an event is to be regarded as loggable you should only need to get to the log, sign it and move on. How many caches require you to hang around the cache for a prolonged period in order to satisfy the needs of the owner? If the event is good many will choose to stop but if others choose to move on then that's their choice you obviously haven't ticked the right boxes to retain their interest. Why let it bother you?

Link to comment

I'm assuming you missed bits of the thread while you read it Tim.

 

It's already been established that you can't compare other caches to events.

 

The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be.

 

This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted .

 

I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.

 

A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?

Link to comment

I'm assuming you missed bits of the thread while you read it Tim.

 

It's already been established that you can't compare other caches to events.

 

The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be.

 

This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted .

 

I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.

 

A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?

 

I find it hard to reconcile what you are saying in this post with your question

 

"Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?"

 

I believe there is a major difference between an event in a museum which is an interesting attraction, or a short event in a pub where the beer is good and an event where someone is expected to stop overnight at the same venue as the organiser. Why do you need them to camp at one venue rather than visiting an event on another premises then being free to stop where they like or even drive home?

Link to comment

 

The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be.

 

This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted .

 

I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.

 

A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?

 

I find it hard to reconcile what you are saying in this post with your question

 

"Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?"

 

I believe there is a major difference between an event in a museum which is an interesting attraction, or a short event in a pub where the beer is good and an event where someone is expected to stop overnight at the same venue as the organiser. Why do you need them to camp at one venue rather than visiting an event on another premises then being free to stop where they like or even drive home?

 

There are two separate issues here.

 

1. Some people feel attendees should stay longer than 5 minutes in order to get a smiley for attending an event. I'm completely neutral on this one. I don't lose out if somebody wants to only spend 5 minutes at one of my events - it's their loss, not mine. And just as at any other event, if I walk in and either don't like the place - or see someone I don't want to meet - I won't think twice about turning around and walking back out the way I came in. Whether or not I personally would log "attended" is beside the point. Some will, and some won't.

 

2. Events (non-camping events) can, in principle, be held in places that have an entrance fee, subject to certain requirments - or the event holder can charge a reasonable amount to cover out of pocket expenses. However, if I understand correctly, it seems from some posters that they have been refused publication of camping events that charge a fee for day visitors to visit the site? The argument is that camping events should be bound only by the same rules that govern non-camping events. So - as long as the event is held on a "not for profit" site I don't see a problem. Does anybody know of any "not for profit" campsites? And has anybody tried to get a camping event published, located on a NFP site, where day visitors are charged to attend?

 

The whole thread does seem a little convoluted - but this is my understanding of the issues.

Link to comment

I'm assuming you missed bits of the thread while you read it Tim.

 

It's already been established that you can't compare other caches to events.

 

The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be.

 

This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted .

 

I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.

 

A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?

The difficulty with this discussion now is that the point raised by Mad H@ter about requiring an organiser to provide access for non-campers is totally different to the one which started the thread. I am in complete agreement with one point and complete disagreement with the other.

 

I agree it should not be required that an organiser provide alternative arrangements for non-campers.

 

But even if this is not a requirement, in many cases it will be possible for non-campers to attend, either by planning or by chance. In those cases the attendees should be able to log the event, even if they are present only for a short time.

 

But I agree even more with HH that events should not be counted as caches anyway. They aren't caches, so why count them as one? Incidentally, Groundspeak is the only listing site that DOES count events as caches.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

Well the Carry your own camping event had this requirement:

 

to qualify for the event you must camp overnight on Saturday night, for those of you that can't make the Saturday night, I shall be there from 17.00 on the Friday night and if you camp then I shall let you log it anyway

 

and it was published. Personally I don't see why camping events shouldn't be able to require that you camp, anyone not wanting to camp shouldn't go.

Link to comment

I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.

It's a different question from the original one, which was about how to stop people turning up at a camping event then signing the log and immediately going home.

So really this ought to be a different thread as there are two different questions being discussed here. No wonder I was getting confused!

 

Be that as it may, it appears that the "open campsites only" policy was brought in to cover a specific case, where a campsite used for an event refused admission to anyone who wasn't camping (or more to the point, hadn't paid the overnight fee).

 

The "open to all" rule for events is meant to prevent artificial requirements that are designed to make the event exclusive. For instance, if you're only allowed to attend an event if you have more than 1000 cache finds.

In other words, if the event excludes people solely for the purpose of exclusivity then it shouldn't be allowed.

 

That's why events in pubs are "open to all"; if a few people won't go in pubs then they're excluded, but clearly the motivation for holding the event in a pub was to allow access not prevent it, so it's OK. The same if the event's on an island that has resident geocachers. As long as the listing doesn't say that you have to present your ferry ticket to gain admission to the event, then it's open to all - if you already lived on the island you wouldn't be excluded, and the ferry fare is a problem that the event organisers can't get around (not a problem that is designed to block certain visitors).

 

But if the event's in a members-only club you'd have to prove that temporary membership is readily available at reasonable cost, otherwise the motive for holding the event there will appear to be exclusivity. If you argued that annual membership is only £100 you'd quite rightly be accused of trying to exclude non-members because that's an unreasonable amount and there are bound to be cheaper alternatives nearby. So it looks like the intention is to exclude some people.

 

If a ferry costs £100 then it's reasonable because the event has to be on the island and that's the only way that some people are going to be able to get there. The intention is clearly not to exclude them.

 

In my view, in the "campers only" site, it all depends whether there are alternatives nearby that do allow visitors for free. If not, if the reviewer disallows the listing he would be effectively banning camping events in the area.

 

Imagine if you held an event in a city hotel, but this particular hotel only allowed paying guests with a room booking to enter. Yes, you could pay for a room and go to the event but it would be unreasonable to expect people to do that. A local reviewer would be fairly sure that other hotels nearby have a function room open to non-residents. So the suspicion is that you're using this hotel as a way to exclude people from the event.

 

As an aside, in the case of a camping event I'd also expect the listing to state that the log book is available at all times for anyone to sign (even if they stay for only five minutes).

 

Where is the "open campsites rule" specified, by the way? I'd like to see how it's worded.

 

And I still say that the whole "Event Cache" concept is flawed and needs revising. For "event" above, read "Event Cache". You can actually hold a geocaching event anywhere you like and place any restrictions on it; it's only that these are called "caches" that we have all this trouble.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I would not refuse an event held at a campsite that charged a reasonable fee for day visitors.

 

I would consider such a fee a parking charge, and as such allowable.

 

Thank you Andalusite. This puts the payment argument to bed - a reasonable fee for day visitors is allowable.

Link to comment

 

And I still say that the whole "Event Cache" concept is flawed and needs revising. For "event" above, read "Event Cache". You can actually hold a geocaching event anywhere you like and place any restrictions on it; it's only that these are called "caches" that we have all this trouble.

 

I tend to agree. Entrance fees or the need for specialist equipment are fine and you can make up your mind whether the tick is worth the cost BUT I'd say it's clear that there should be no ALRs such as sleeping in a tent or taking part in activities.

 

Event organisers who seek to tag unecessary ALRs onto to basic requirement to sign the log are a large part of the problem IMO.

Link to comment

But I agree even more with HH that events should not be counted as caches anyway. They aren't caches, so why count them as one? Incidentally, Groundspeak is the only listing site that DOES count events as caches.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I have always assumed that events were originally classed as caches so that TBs and coins could be dropped into them.

 

Back in ancient times, we used to have a Cheshire "non-event" meeting for geocachers that wasn't a cache but people turned up anyway despite the lack of smiley and the odd name! We just used a nearby cache to virtually deposit trackables. I agree that events are not caches and shouldn't really be counted as such.

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...