"An app is not an acceptable file type" ?

[+komatsu200]

I recently created a cache that requires the finder to have an app installed on their smart phone in order to solve a puzzle and find the cache. After doing a search for caches with the phrase( app for that )I found that there are several active caches that require an app on a smart phone to solve a puzzle. However, when I submitted my cache I got a notification that it had been temporarily disabled so I could edit the cache page and bring it into compliance with current guidelines. In an attempt to do this I added the following warning that I found in the guidelines.

 

"Alert: You are about to download a file that contains further details needed to find this geocache. As the cache owner, I represent that this file is safe to download although it has not been checked by Groundspeak or by the reviewer for possible malicious content. Download this file at your own risk. [insert link here]"

 

When I resubmitted it I recieved a notification that it had been archived and the reason I was given was that "An app is not an acceptable file type and therefore I am not able to publish your cache." I also recieved a link that I could use to appeal the decision. I appealed it but haven't got a reply yet.

 

I was hoping that someone in here might be able to explain why downloading an app is acceptable on some caches but not on mine.

[+Jayman11]

Not sure, I would just email your reviewer and ask them the specifics. Maybe it's the specific app that is needed or something?...maybe if it's an app you have to pay for or have to sign up for.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Jayman11

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

You've read the Guidelines, right? (2.1.1.2 specifically)

 

Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable. Geocache listings that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. The use of memory sticks and similar devices is not permitted either.

Certain files (specifically .TXT files, .PDFs and all audio files) may be acceptable in the interest of allowing greater cache creativity. These downloads must adhere to all geocaching guidelines and include the following text above the link:

"Alert: You are about to download a file that contains further details needed to find this geocache. As the cache owner, I represent that this file is safe to download although it has not been checked by Groundspeak or by the reviewer for possible malicious content. Download this file at your own risk. [insert link here]"

 

Bolding mine.

 

[Edit: to add bolding]

Edited January 12, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+addisonbr]

Can you tell me more about the app that needs to be installed? If it's not absolutely required to solve the cache - if there are other workarounds - I may be able to help you modify the cache listing to bring it into compliance...

[+thebruce0]

I was hoping that someone in here might be able to explain why downloading an app is acceptable on some caches but not on mine.

Unfortunately, the only answer you may get from some people is the "no precedent" rule. Just because it was granted for someone else doesn't mean it will for you. And, if you bring any attention to the other instance(s) of this issue, those may also get disabled (regardless of how long they've been active) for the same reasoning.

 

I hope you get your answer. This is sort of in line with ideas I've had for cache puzzles I've been thinking about for a while now.

 

However, I could understand the app issue to a degree, because if it's an "app" it's most likely also hardware specific -- whether a mobile phone brand, GPS device, operating system, etc. File types are generally open and accessible regardless of platform. Sound, music, images, video, websites... but mobile apps require a mobile device. I've seen blackberry puzzles, but they can be solved without the blackberry (more referring to hardware makeup rather than a task that can only be performed on the blackberry, eg)

 

Anyway, my point - when disputing, you'll never get anywhere by providing examples of other caches where your issue was not an issue; and it might get those examples disabled like your own was.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I was hoping that someone in here might be able to explain why downloading an app is acceptable on some caches but not on mine.

 

I'd say you're asking the wrong question.

 

You might well want to take up addisonbr on his offer to attempt re-design the cache such that it's doable without an application download.

 

There's simply no point in pursuing the question of whether the reviewer was wrong to deny your cache with app download required, or to prove that some other reviewer was wrong to have published a cache with an app download.

 

In the first case, the guideline is clear, and in the second, without seeing individual cache pages, it's hard to know whether the "app download" is optional and some other route to solving exists, or whether the language was added post-publication, or whether the reviewer was, in fact, wrong.

[+Castle Mischief]

Is it possible that the app performs a function that can be done with some other tool? Would it be possible to simply mention that a special tool is required and not mention the specific app at all?

 

Say maybe if the app was a... I don't know... Garblefunk Detector. Maybe if you just mention that you need "a" garblefunk detector and not "the" Garbelfunk Detector App.

 

Is the app generic enough that there are multiple competing apps available? Similar solution. Just mention that you need a "tool" that will "detect the presence within 100 feet of garblefunk" and try that.

 

Try to be more broad (if possible) and try not to point right to a specific file.

 

Unless there's only one specific file that will ever work. You're probably not going to get that through the filter.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[+Team Pixos]

We have a puzzle here that requires a QR reader to solve.

[+dfx]

Having to download a specific app as an absolute requirement should not be acceptable on any cache. Things are different if the app is only one way to get the job done, e.g. there's other apps that do the same thing, or if it could be done through a website, or if you could potentially write your own app, etc.

[+Castle Mischief]

We have a puzzle here that requires a QR reader to solve.

 

That's a much better example of what I was garblefunking about. There are a multitude of solutions for reading a QR code, and plenty that don't require any app at all.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[+Viajero Perdido]

Apps may contain malware, hence the rule.

 

There's always Wherigo, which is essentially the same idea, but so limited in functionality that malware can't live in there. Allowed.

[+cx1]

Apps may contain malware, hence the rule.

 

There's always Wherigo, which is essentially the same idea, but so limited in functionality that malware can't live in there. Allowed.

Actually I would have to disagree with that.

Apps from an official source such as the ITunes app store go through a process of scanning for malware prior to being posted for download. I would assume the official android marketplace is similar.

Wherigo cartridges are user created and do not go through any scanning or testing for malware prior to open publication. The LUA programming involved does allow for reading and writing to a local disk (or other storage medium) so the potential for malware is there. But given the small audience for Wherigo cartridges the rewards for bothering to program a malware type cartridge would probably not be worth the trouble.

[+Lil Devil]

We have a puzzle here that requires a QR reader to solve.

And while there are "apps" to read QR codes, you can also take a picture of the QR code and bring it home and use an online reader to decode it.

[+dakboy]

We have a puzzle here that requires a QR reader to solve.

 

That's a much better example of what I was garblefunking about. There are a multitude of solutions for reading a QR code, and plenty that don't require any app at all.

Not only that, a QR reader's sole reason for existing isn't geocaching. QR codes (and readers) pre-date smartphones and geocaching (they were invented in 1994).

Edited January 12, 2012 by dakboy

[+dakboy]

Apps may contain malware, hence the rule.

 

There's always Wherigo, which is essentially the same idea, but so limited in functionality that malware can't live in there. Allowed.

Actually I would have to disagree with that.

Apps from an official source such as the ITunes app store go through a process of scanning for malware prior to being posted for download. I would assume the official android marketplace is similar.

Depending upon your definition of malware, it definitely gets through on Google's Android Market. Most commonly it's apps that sneak in things like AirPush (which spams your notification bar with ads), but there are other things that can slip through as well.

[+dakboy]

There's always Wherigo, which is essentially the same idea, but so limited in functionality that malware can't live in there. Allowed.

Wherigo was invented by Groundspeak. Of course they're going to allow it.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I recently created a cache that requires the finder to have an app installed on their smart phone in order to solve a puzzle and find the cache. After doing a search for caches with the phrase( app for that )I found that there are several active caches that require an app on a smart phone to solve a puzzle. However, when I submitted my cache I got a notification that it had been temporarily disabled so I could edit the cache page and bring it into compliance with current guidelines. In an attempt to do this I added the following warning that I found in the guidelines.

 

"Alert: You are about to download a file that contains further details needed to find this geocache. As the cache owner, I represent that this file is safe to download although it has not been checked by Groundspeak or by the reviewer for possible malicious content. Download this file at your own risk. [insert link here]"

 

When I resubmitted it I recieved a notification that it had been archived and the reason I was given was that "An app is not an acceptable file type and therefore I am not able to publish your cache." I also recieved a link that I could use to appeal the decision. I appealed it but haven't got a reply yet.

 

I was hoping that someone in here might be able to explain why downloading an app is acceptable on some caches but not on mine.

Only a guess on my part...

 

Could it be because you are having them download a particular app from the page (based on the wording you have above)...where as the others that I saw (without digging too deep) let the user decide on the appropriate app...

[+Team Pixos]

I had no idea QR readers existed way back then

The things one learns in these forms

[+PastorDIC]

You are still not getting the point and most of these comments are just trying to find ways to get around the In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published rule. There was a cache by a local cacher a couple years ago where he had a bunch of CD's that the cacher had to take one home and put the picture pieces together to find the cache coordinates. Since there was an exe and probably a dll file the cache was disapproved and archived.

[+cx1]

You are still not getting the point and most of these comments are just trying to find ways to get around the In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published rule. There was a cache by a local cacher a couple years ago where he had a bunch of CD's that the cacher had to take one home and put the picture pieces together to find the cache coordinates. Since there was an exe and probably a dll file the cache was disapproved and archived.

 

Groundspeak allows the wiggle room to get around this. Otherwise why would they not simply omit the work 'likely' from the guideline?

Some people do not feel secure in downloading an app.

However an app might make this puzzle much easier to solve.

So why not have the option for folks who are willing to take the app route?

As long as it is not 'impossible' to solve the puzzle without a specific app or even specific piece of PC software then it is within the guideline you cite and should be allowed.

[+PastorDIC]

I would be upset if there was a cache near me that required a smartphone app to complete. As much as I used to love my smartphone, I am now on Social Security Disability, and I can't afford a smartphone, let alone all the bandwidth.

 

I know a number of cachers that try to keep all caches as found within X number of miles of their home. They wouldn't be happy if someone made a cache that they could not complete.

 

PastorDIC

[+addisonbr]

There are a number of caches near me that I can't complete, or at least, that I can't complete without borrowing equipment from other cachers. I don't own a canoe, or a Wherigo-capable GPSr, for starters.

 

But I don't mind.

[+cx1]

I would be upset if there was a cache near me that required a smartphone app to complete. As much as I used to love my smartphone, I am now on Social Security Disability, and I can't afford a smartphone, let alone all the bandwidth.

 

I know a number of cachers that try to keep all caches as found within X number of miles of their home. They wouldn't be happy if someone made a cache that they could not complete.

 

PastorDIC

Again as long as it is not required but rather much easier then making several trips back home or the public library to use a PC then suggesting an app to take with them should not be forbidden.

 

As far as being concerned that it might upset a radius junky....there is always the ignore cache option.

I don't consider whether or not every single cacher within x miles of any cache I place will be able to get it. In fact I assume most cachers will not be able to get them. Otherwise all caches would need to be 1/1 D/T rated. It is the radius junky's issue, not the cache hiders.

And I readily admit I have placed a very difficult puzzle intentionally to upset a radius junky. He is my caching buddy though.

[+pnpure]

Apps may contain malware, hence the rule.

 

There's always Wherigo, which is essentially the same idea, but so limited in functionality that malware can't live in there. Allowed.

Actually I would have to disagree with that.

Apps from an official source such as the ITunes app store go through a process of scanning for malware prior to being posted for download. I would assume the official android marketplace is similar.

 

Nope, you're falling for the market hype. Do a search on "Apple App Store Malware" or "Android Market Malware." They are most certainly out there, have been "officially reviewed and vetted," and published in these "safe" repositories.