camping events

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Excellent news everyone.

It seems that the powers that be in america have realised the fun of camping events and have made it possible to list camping events as "must sleep overnight" restriction. The exact wording that was allowed by New york adminreviewer was What other event is it acceptable and encouraged that you sleep through the event in order to attend? :-) To log this event, you must sign the log book after spending Saturday night camping with your fellow cachers

Briansnat attended so it must have been ok to list it otherwise such an old and respected reviewer as he would have kicked off big time

Here's the listing for us all to be able to see and use as a proforma :Mid-Winter Geo Survival Campout 2011

1.4k · January 23, 2012

Liked this bit as well

"Attendance will be taken, and bed checks may be performed. As there are other activities in town, the night will be defined as starting at midnight, until 6 am Sunday."

3k · January 23, 2012

Briansnat attended so it must have been ok to list it otherwise such an old and respected reviewer as he would have kicked off big time

I'm probably wrong, but I thought briansnat was a forum mod rather than a reviewer?

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Obviously my error. He's been around so long I'm not sure there was a difference when he started.

But it doesn't detract from the great news that the misunderstanding over what people thought was the American view and what is in fact the case can now be resolved and our reviewers jobs made much much easier.

2.5k · January 23, 2012

Great News I welcome this with open arms

Edited January 23, 2012 by Moote

January 23, 2012

Importantly, each cache is assessed on its individual merits. Please understand that a decision by one reviewer about a particular cache takes all factors into account, and this is one of the reasons we do not have pre-filled proformas for cache page contents.

Please do not take this one cache event as a precedent for publishing others like it; we do not give pre-approval for caches. All subsequent submissions for events will be assessed on their own merits, taking into account all local factors.

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Importantly, each cache is assessed on its individual merits. Please understand that a decision by one reviewer about a particular cache takes all factors into account, and this is one of the reasons we do not have pre-filled proformas for cache page contents.

Please do not take this one cache event as a precedent for publishing others like it; we do not give pre-approval for caches. All subsequent submissions for events will be assessed on their own merits, taking into account all local factors.

Sandy, thanks for your reply. I'm well versed in the "no precedents" rule. However. The issue has always been that we have been told by our reviewers that Camping events were NEVER allowed to be only for campers because it was a rule that had been set in stone by America. That there was no possibility of this ever not being the case because the Americans just didn't understand what the British camping events were like. That there was no point trying to explain it to them and get them to change THEIR rule because it just wouldn't make sense to them.

The really great news is, now that they obviously DO understand what it's like, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever for our reviewers to either just go ahead and do the sensible thing and allow camping only events or AT THE VERY LEAST make immediate representations to Jeremy to clarify this situation before any more UK camping events are held up or not allowed due to, what has obviously been a misunderstanding of a rule that doesn't seem to exist.

So this is great news

Hope that clarifies that particular point

January 23, 2012

Importantly, each cache is assessed on its individual merits. Please understand that a decision by one reviewer about a particular cache takes all factors into account, and this is one of the reasons we do not have pre-filled proformas for cache page contents.

Please do not take this one cache event as a precedent for publishing others like it; we do not give pre-approval for caches. All subsequent submissions for events will be assessed on their own merits, taking into account all local factors.

Sandy, thanks for your reply. I'm well versed in the "no precedents" rule. However. The issue has always been that we have been told by our reviewers that Camping events were NEVER allowed to be only for campers because it was a rule that had been set in stone by America. That there was no possibility of this ever not being the case because the Americans just didn't understand what the British camping events were like. That there was no point trying to explain it to them and get them to change THEIR rule because it just wouldn't make sense to them.

The really great news is, now that they obviously DO understand what it's like, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever for our reviewers to either just go ahead and do the sensible thing and allow camping only events or AT THE VERY LEAST make immediate representations to Jeremy to clarify this situation before any more UK camping events are held up or not allowed due to, what has obviously been a misunderstanding of a rule that doesn't seem to exist.

So this is great news

Hope that clarifies that particular point

The concern is that you are pointing to this one cache in the hopes that it means all practices in your local region will change. That is not necessarily the case. This cache seems to be based on a specific concept, which may have meant that it was published with the added stipulation by the cache owner. This is not typical, but one cache publication.

Generally speaking, those who attend an event - even part of an event - should be able to log it. Nowhere in our current logging guidelines do we require the signing of a logbook to log an attended at a cache event.

allow camping only events or AT THE VERY LEAST make immediate representations to Jeremy to clarify this situation before any more UK camping events are held up or not allowed due to, what has obviously been a misunderstanding of a rule that doesn't seem to exist

To be clear, excluding cachers from 'attending' an event because they cannot camp overnight, is not in keeping with our guidelines. We will consider your point and confer with the UK team, but our general stance is that events are 'open'. From our guidelines, "Event caches are gatherings that are organized by geocachers and are open to other geocachers."

Edited January 23, 2012 by Sandy
spelling

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Thanks Sandy, that's what we've been asking for.

The idea behind this is not to try and exclude the non campers from attending camping events. There is a different atmosphere when spending the night as a group of campers. Event setters were being asked to jump through lots of hoops to ensure that it was possible to allow people that wanted to drive by and spend 30 seconds just to log the cache to log it....at the end of the day those people can just go ahead and log it anyway, they're not going to get the same experience as the people camping.

It's not been possible for events to be held, until recently, if a single penny was charged to day visitors.

All that we as a community have been asking is that more allowance is given to event setters so that people can see that the event is designed for an overnight camp. We'll prob hold a seperate event during one evening anyway but that there should be acknowledgement given to those people who want to camp. So it could happen that some events meant that non campers couldn't log it. but only because they didn't want to stay overnight.

The counter argument that we have given is that events have always been held around the world that are not all inclusive and open to all. there have been women only, camping only, boat trips to islands, if we really want to be pedantic any event inside a public house or bar is not open as devote Muslims may struggle to come inside.

But the camping community have always said that they do not see that as an issue just like they do not see 5*5* caches that need scuba or mountaineering gear as a problem.

I know one event or cache does not give a precedent for another but it does give a huge sense of resentment that there appears to be one set of rules for some people and another set for us.

January 23, 2012

Well I am still learning about this hobby of ours :lol: even after 7 years LOL

Generally speaking, those who attend an event - even part of an event - should be able to log it. Nowhere in our current logging guidelines do we require the signing of a logbook to log an attended at a cache event.

I always thought you had to sign a log book when attending an event.

As to the rest of this thread - we do camp - well caravan - and would always want electric :lol: but if there was no electric would choose not to go - my choice. If the event was a 5 5 we would not go - my choice. If it was wild camping we would not go - my choice. If the event was to camp then again it would be my choice. I do think the event organiser should also have the choice as to the event they wish to set.

We have held one camping event and are in the process of organising another in a few months but it can be difficult trying to find a camp site which will accept visitors without incurring an extra charge for them yet the campers still have to pay.

We all play this game the way we want to but I have no problems with some using boats, caving, rock climbing, scuba, 20 miles walks, UP mountains ( and there are lots in Wales where I live) it is THEIR choice. However if I wanted to hold a camping event where cachers had to camp and stay overnight to get the smilie why can't I?

Lilian

3.1k · January 23, 2012

I've been holding camping events for 5 years now, and I really enjoy hosting them as much as I enjoy attending those set by others.

However....

There will be no Let's Go Camping in Cheshire this year...

Why? Quite simply the campsite I would like to hold the event on doesn't allow day visitors.

"So have it somewhere else..." I hear you say....

Why the hell should I??? This is the site I would like to camp at, not one that suits the reviewers, who don't even go to camping events!!!

I don't want to go to a site somewhere else, I chose the site because it's close to a lovely ring of caches, with great facilities, and even better, electric hook up and beautiful surroundings!

So - why should I go somewhere else to suit people who will just turn up for an hour or so? Why should the site be chosen for them, not for those that are actually staying on the site...?

If the reviewers in the USA are allowing camping only events, then surely it should be allowed here.

I don't do big hills, so I choose not to go hunting caches on the top of big mountains. If I didn't have camping gear, I'd choose not to go to a camping only event. It's quite simple.

What I would like to see is that there be "camping only" events, and I'd gladly hold 2 events that weekend, a camping only one, and then maybe another in a local pub one evening.

The main thing about camping events is the amazing atmosphere at night... stories being told, brews (alcoholic an otherwise!!) being drunk, and fun being had.... It'd maybe encourage those who currently choose not to camp to do so - there's nothing more I'd like to see than more geo - campers...

I'm CERTAINLY not trying to prevent people from attending, in fact, I'd like more to come along and camp!

It really isn't rocket science! :rolleyes:

Edited January 23, 2012 by HazelS

January 23, 2012

If the reviewers in the USA are allowing camping only events, then surely it should be allowed here.

This is not necessarily the case. One reviewer published this one event. We are discussing.

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Great that you are discussing this Sandy, regarding your point that this was a specific concept, you will find that there has been several very similar camping events in this country on Dartmoor that have had to negotiate many little hurdles to be published.

Maybe New York Reviewer could furnish us with any negotiations that he felt necessary prior to publishing that particular cache and then we would be able to see that this wasn't just published without any concern ( like we would all hope he did) then we would be able to see if it was a specific one off event or if there was special dispensation given..... or whether this in fact never once raised itself as an issue.

That would clarify the point to the community as a whole

1.4k · January 23, 2012

<Quote>Generally speaking, those who attend an event - even part of an event - should be able to log it. Nowhere in our current logging guidelines do we require the signing of a logbook to log an attended at a cache event. <quote>

Surely an event is the same as any cache, a signature in the log book is required to claim a find.

<quote> "Event caches are gatherings that are organized by geocachers and are open to other geocachers." <quote>

How can this be so, if an event is at the top of a high hill/Tor/Mountain or on an island that requires a kayak or boat to reach then it is not open to all geocachers.

Many modern day cachers are youngster who are under the age of 16 so they are not able to attend any event that is held in a public house unless they are accompanied by an adult.

As has already been stated some are barred due to religious believes.

3.9k · January 23, 2012

Well I hope this the beginning to end for one of the daftest rules that our esteemed reviewers are asked to apply. I feel sorry for those who are prepared to put the time and effort into organizing events only to have restrictions imposed.

January 23, 2012

This is what one third of the HofB previously sent to the powers that be (hence the start is a bit strange):

....I am interested by the term that the camping events must be open to all.

I have had a look through the official guidelines on GC.com for event caches and cannot find this stated (maybe I can't see the wood for the trees!).

I personally feel that a camping event is open to all, and the whole point of the event is to camp out with others and get to meet new people and investigate new places. I do not see that it is the same type of event as a pub meet (for example), where you are in a place for a short period of time and people can turn up for 5 minutes, sign the log book and get their smiley face.

Camping events take the whole weekend (or longer) and people can unwind and socialise. Its a great way to meet people and we have personally made made many new Geocaching friends this way. But requesting that a camping event includes an option for non-campers to attend and log seems to make the whole camping event seem pointless. Why should anyone camp if all they need to do is turn up for half an hour and then go off on their way.

It seems that caching is becoming more and more about numbers and how many caches you can find and how quickly. People no longer seem to care about finding interesting locations and/or beautiful walks its just about sticking a cache anywhere where there is a gap. This mentality is also now a strong feature in camping events, the campsite you now find has to meet certain criteria (does it allow day visitors, if not is there a pub or public meeting place nearby for the non-campers?). It could be the most perfect spot in the country and a lovely location for campers to stay but if it doesn't meet the non-campers criteria then it is immediately no good (and the campers loose out to the needs of the non-campers).

All caches are open to all people, its just whether you choose to do them. There are a number of 5/5 caches which are available to me to find, but if I don't wish to climb / use specialist equipment (or whatever the requirements are) to find it that is my choice. Does it mean that following the camping event lead there should be a log book in the car park of the location for me to sign just because I don't want to actually take part in the 5/5 cache? I know this sounds ridiculous and over the top - but I hope you see my point!

Is there a way to review the camping event guidelines to scrap this "open to all" element which hinders the camping experience and simply panders to the number hungry cachers rather than the actual camp attendees.

Before posting this extract of a previous email I have had another look at the guidelines and found this sentance "Some events are published six months prior if an overnight stay is expected" - surely this could be applied to a camping event?

January 23, 2012

Just to add to this, I would always try and have a day-event if I was to publish another camping event if I thought it was suitable (my Birthday event was the perfect example), but as Hazel says, it seriously limits your ability to find a quality campsite sometimes. Most campsites allow day visitors, but they charge. Last year's Mega committee will remember this well. In case you didn't know, I believe they paid a "fee" to the campsite to allow day visitors. That of course came out of their fundraising.

When I started caching, the Oxford event (Dreaming Spires) had a camping event associated with it. The camping event enabled people who were coming from a long distance away, had somewhere to stay. But of course the rules then said that you had to open up the camping event to day visitors. I mean, how daft is that?

I did a similar event in Cheshire because I wanted to attend a Manchester evening event. If I'm honest, I made the day event on the Sunday lunchtime knowing that few people would attend just to get a smiley (and I was right).

If you can't deter the smiley hunters and GC.com wish to keep this ridiculous rule, can I make a suggestion?

Have a flash mob outside the door of the campsite. 15 minutes only. Job done.

I know by posting this, I'm going to incur the wrath of some non-campers, however, we won't be attending many camping events this year because time is going to be difficult and we have a geo-wedding to organise and pay for. We won't be attending as a day visitor because it goes against our principles (although if it's local, we will do our best to stay at least one night).

Edited January 23, 2012 by The Other Stu

January 23, 2012

I'm in support of dropping the day event for any camping event, as others have already said, it's a camping event, not a turn up for a few minutes event.

It's a while since I set a cache, but I recall an attribute for specialist equipment, I'd see a tent as specialist equipment to attend a camping event.

It's good to see that our voices are being heard, an this discussion is taking place.

January 23, 2012

We are confirmed camping event lovers - but now too old for tenting (Dr Dick notwithstanding)So have to use caravan and need electrics due to breathing pump ! As many have said - the whole experience is the thing - Beers and BBQs, meeting up with cachers who you only know from forum correspondence putting the world to rights. These things can only be enjoyed if you are prepared to stay - As has been suggested maybe a "flash mob" outside the event? But if the organisers go to the trouble of organising a site, even if it doesn't like day visitors, and it is Labled "Camping event" it should be just that !!Choice is the thing - If you don't want to stay Don't go !!

1.7k · January 23, 2012

I think most on here know my views on this but just in case they don't this is what I said on the subject on the forum back in October:

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 . 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 , what a waste of time and effort.

Fingers well and trully crossed for a good sensible (IMO) result from across the pond.

2.2k · January 23, 2012

Just thought that I would add a little bit of information to the mix.

I've had it confirmed that the original event that I mentioned was published, as it stands straight away without any discussion amendments or trouble. This , I feel , negates the usual " no precedents" rule because it was published in the normal way. There was nothing wrong with it as far as the American reviewer was concerned. It clearly stated that you would be expected to be there for a time period overnight and that you needed to camp out with the necessary survival gear.

I only add this to hopefully make the situation much easier to resolve. There isn't anything to really discuss. The was a misunderstanding in the UK reviewers field where they thought that it was not possible to list events where camping was obligatory. This belief has now been shown to be incorrect. There's no need for any lengthy chats or angst. No one in the community is going to be pulling out the pitch forks and storming the castle lol

It was an honest genuine mistake and all that needs to be done is rectify it so that we can sort out this years events with ease

1k · January 24, 2012

how about someone who turns up after most people have left and theres only 2 tents from the event left and claims a attend, thts about the equivilent of turning up to a flash event 3 hours late

1.7k · January 24, 2012

how about someone who turns up after most people have left and theres only 2 tents from the event left and claims a attend, thts about the equivilent of turning up to a flash event 3 hours late

This is a gripe of mine as well!

There were cachers who 'attended' Piratemania last year by just turning up on the Sunday

Their numbers didn't count towards Mega Status because that was strictly 'Saturday only' but they did still get the relatively rare Mega Icon to which they contributed nothing!

Mark

January 24, 2012

This is a gripe of mine as well!
There were cachers who 'attended' Piratemania last year by just turning up on the Sunday

Their numbers didn't count towards Mega Status because that was strictly 'Saturday only' but they did still get the relatively rare Mega Icon to which they contributed nothing!

Yes!! -- Exactly.......And what about those that tag along, contribute nothing, and claim a 5/5?

Or even worse are those that join a gang and then 10 of them claim a FTF!! Only one person is the real FTFer

We all do it our own way.... We all know best....We are all always right.

1.1k · January 24, 2012

how about someone who turns up after most people have left and theres only 2 tents from the event left and claims a attend, thts about the equivilent of turning up to a flash event 3 hours late

This is a gripe of mine as well!

There were cachers who 'attended' Piratemania last year by just turning up on the Sunday

Their numbers didn't count towards Mega Status because that was strictly 'Saturday only' but they did still get the relatively rare Mega Icon to which they contributed nothing!

It seems to me there are two factors here which appear to be conflated in many of the posts but which really are totally separate.

The first is that there seems to be a desire by some campers to prevent those who do not camp overnight from claiming the smiley for the event. This appears to be a most unseemly "dog in a manger" attitude, especially, as DizzyPair point out, recording a smiley as a day visitor seems such an insignificant "crime" compared to claiming a 5/5 cache for just watching someone else do the hard mental and physical work. For goodness sake, just forget what wretched smileys other people get, surely they aren't the reason you attend!

Many posts have extolled what a convivial time you have staying overnight at camping events - well, THAT is your reward for camping overnight, not the blessed smiley.

Unfortunately this attitude tends to overshadow the second point, which IS important - that of the obligation on an organiser to make provision for day visitors where this is difficult to do, and where it may even result in having to choose a less attractive location for campers. I have the utmost sympathy with this aspect, and if the proponents concentrated on removing this requirement instead of banging on about stopping day visitors from getting smileys, or icons, or whatever, I think you would do much more to further your cause.

Rgds, Andy

1.7k · January 24, 2012

Unfortunately this attitude tends to overshadow the second point, which IS important - that of the obligation on an organiser to make provision for day visitors where this is difficult to do, and where it may even result in having to choose a less attractive location for campers. I have the utmost sympathy with this aspect, and if the proponents concentrated on removing this requirement instead of banging on about stopping day visitors from getting smileys, or icons, or whatever, I think you would do much more to further your cause.

Rgds, Andy

Couldn't agree more, well put

2.2k · January 24, 2012

There have been lots of comments saying why not have a flash mob or just be happy to hold a pub event and let those who want to camp do so and those that don't don't and sometimes it works really well. There's a great campsite that either allows visitors or theres a great pub. sometimes a flashmob at the gate does look inclusive. sometimes it isn't possible. sometimes it would be better to let people know about a camping event ahead of time. Sometimes it might look like a " team incredible can't be bothered" camp

People might feel they were intruding because the gc event is a flash or in the pub. Give the cache setter the option of campers only. Not to exclude anyone but to give them an incentive to join in. It's not really about the smiley. Not allowing it Is the thing that excludes people because the camping will be organised via groups of fb friends not open to all gc event pages.

So, this leveling of the playing field will actually make the events more inclusive at better locations. Not In a layby , not in a past its sell by date pub. But in the best location that is available to the cache setter, :-)

1.7k · January 24, 2012

..recording a smiley as a day visitor seems such an insignificant "crime" compared to claiming a 5/5 cache for just watching someone else do the hard mental and physical work.

I think there is a parallel actually

Whether you set Multi, a Puzzle or an Event surely it's not too much to ask others to participate as CO intended?

:unsure:

M

January 24, 2012

Any of our British reviewers going to add their thoughts / feelings?

Lilian

1.1k · January 24, 2012

..recording a smiley as a day visitor seems such an insignificant "crime" compared to claiming a 5/5 cache for just watching someone else do the hard mental and physical work.

I think there is a parallel actually

Whether you set Multi, a Puzzle or an Event surely it's not too much to ask others to participate as CO intended?

M

I don't wish this to sound obnoxious, but as someone with no real interest either way because I'm not particularly interested in attending a camping event either as a camper or day visitor, I'm telling you straight that specifically trying to exclude non-campers, or demanding that they don't get a smiley/icon if they do attend, is not helping your case at all.

Deliberately trying to exclude people is quite different to not being obliged to go to great lengths to include them. I hope you achieve the latter, but I think that if you push Groundspeak for the former you will get neither.

And, BTW, yes, I do think people who register finds on puzzles, multis, high terrain, etc. should have actually done them, not just pick someone else's brain or brawn, but if they choose otherwise it's none of my business. And I don't think there is any real parallel to an event because an event cache is NOT actually a cache, it's just a social gathering. Groundspeak is the only site that counts events as a find, and I suspect that just happened because it was easier to fit in with the web site when they were introduced. It would be better if events were just listed and didn't count as a find, as happens on all the other sites, then part of this wouldn't even arise.

Rgds, Andy

3.7k · January 24, 2012

I'd be expected to disagree with Amberel, but this time he echoes my thoughts.

Anyway, why has this just arisen now, nearly a year after the event in question?

3.1k · January 24, 2012

specifically trying to exclude non-campers, or demanding that they don't get a smiley/icon if they do attend, is not helping your case at all.

Andy....

I think you missed the point.... (well, my point anyway!)

It's more about getting those who tip up for 5 mins, to think again about attending as a camper... :rolleyes:

Camping events are SO much fun, it's about ENCOURAGING more people to come and camp - NOT about excluding people!!

The turning up and just going caching is not in the spirit of camping events, they're about spending time with those you'd not normally spend time with, caching with people you'd never usually cache with due to geography, about the cameraderie, the laughs, the daft antics, it's not about simply turning up just to get a smiley!

I'd love to see those who usually turn up to get a smiley, turn up and camp!!!

More specifically, and most importantly it's about the logistics.... It REALLY is very difficult to find a site that will allow day visitors. Add that to the usual things you have to think about when you're choosing a camp site:

Facilities

Cleanliness

Electric hookup

Price

Rally field (sometimes number attending preclude us from just going on the main site)

and, more importantly, closeness to a good number of decent quality caches.

Why should we choose our campsites to suit those who are simply going to turn up for a short period of time? If we didn't have to have the campsite open to all, we would be able to go to the best possible site for those who are camping!

3.1k · January 24, 2012

Anyway, why has this just arisen now, nearly a year after the event in question?

It's not.... It's not about any particular camping event, it's about camping events in general...

It's something we chat about a LOT on Facebook, and it's rearing it's head now as we're all planning our camping events for the summer...

They take a lot of planning, and it really does have to start now!!

January 24, 2012

I think non-campers do not realise how difficult it can be to find a camp site which accepts visitors and to be honest why should the site accept them?

The camp site will receive no revenue from them yet if muddy they may churn up the camp site, use facilities which cost the site to provide. So they are quite within their rights to say NO but the event organiser may have spent considerable time and money driving around finding that camp site in a beautiful area but then has to start again.

Last year's Mega committee will remember this well. In case you didn't know, I believe they paid a "fee" to the campsite to allow day visitors. That of course came out of their fundraising.

As one who travelled around looking for that camp site originally there was going to be no charge for day visitors and I was amazed when I heard that the camp site had requested this. As we had resigned through ill health by then, but I think that the camp site went 'ker-ching' and charged - my thoughts only as I do not know.

I am currently looking for a camp site in W Wales and plan on going there on Saturday a round trip of 150 miles but again that is MY CHOICE.

Which is my point all the way along it is all about choices :-) and I do think it should be the choice of the event organiser. In my experience of camping events over the last 15 months ( we bought a caravan so we could attend camping events :-)) the organisers put in an awful lot of time and their own money to make the event a success.

Get togethers can be planned without the smilie but then how does it get out to the cachers concerned? If it is done through Facebook then only friends on there will get to see it and so the comments about 'clique' groups start. Some who may wish to camp will not know about the get together and so miss out as not all like or use FB. So the circle of cachers who camp stay small and do not grow as they could.

Many are not bothered either way and again that is THEIR choice.

January 24, 2012

Somewhat off topic. Well nearly.

If some greedy campsite owner/manager asked me to pay them so my friends could come and visit I would be venting my anger in their direction.

And if top management told me that I could only hold an event if I abided by their rules. Well then I'd abide by their rules. I might grumble. But then I like to grumble. In fact we British like to grumble too.

Sorry to intervene. Now you can get back to your serious discussion.

1.1k · January 24, 2012

specifically trying to exclude non-campers, or demanding that they don't get a smiley/icon if they do attend, is not helping your case at all.

Andy....

I think you missed the point.... (well, my point anyway!)

Hi Hazel; I don't think I did miss the point, but you may have missed mine :lol: :lol: . I fully understand your point that having to cater for non-campers severely compromises the event for non-campers. I think you SHOULD be able to plan the event without having to consider non-campers.

BUT - after having planned the event around those who are camping, if any non-campers WERE able to attend, I hope you would not turn them away on principle, or allow them to come but tell them they could not log their attendance.

It's more about getting those who tip up for 5 mins, to think again about attending as a camper...

If you encourage a cliquey environment by excluding non-campers on principle, you are more likely to put people OFF camping than you are to persuade them to take it up.

You say that you do not wish to exclude non-campers, that's good to hear and I accept that, but excluding non-campers was exactly what was being proposed in the messages to which I was responding.

Rgds, Andy

1.7k · January 24, 2012

Somewhat off topic. Well nearly.

If some greedy campsite owner/manager asked me to pay them so my friends could come and visit I would be venting my anger in their direction.

And would you do the same at a hotel or guest house?

I see little difference in this regard.

And if top management told me that I could only hold an event if I abided by their rules. Well then I'd abide by their rules. I might grumble. But then I like to grumble. In fact we British like to grumble too.

Sorry to intervene. Now you can get back to your serious discussion.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that they were not going to abide by Groundspeak's rules :unsure:

January 24, 2012

Clarification on the event cache guidelines and the application of the guidelines by the UK team:

This topic has been discussed by the Groundspeak team, and we support the current application of the event cache guidelines by the UK team. Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome. Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

We will be reminding the reviewing team across the global community about this aspect of the event cache guidelines, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

2.2k · January 24, 2012

Clarification on the event cache guidelines and the application of the guidelines by the UK team:

This topic has been discussed by the Groundspeak team, and we support the current application of the event cache guidelines by the UK team. Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome. Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

We will be reminding the reviewing team across the global community about this aspect of the event cache guidelines, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

Thank you Sandy for getting this matter looked at. It;s good to know that there will now be a level playing field, I do still feel that this is the wrong decision, but the decision has been made.

We will now no longer see events that are Women only, camping only, .... one could argue that up mountains, on islands and indeed in public houses and bars are now not permitted. I'm so sorry that I have made this this case on a worldwide basis.

The eventing scene is less rich for this decision.

January 24, 2012

Clarification on the event cache guidelines and the application of the guidelines by the UK team:

This topic has been discussed by the Groundspeak team, and we support the current application of the event cache guidelines by the UK team. Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome. Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

We will be reminding the reviewing team across the global community about this aspect of the event cache guidelines, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

OK sorry but can I ask you to clear something for me please Sandy? Was this written by Groundspeak? or by the UK team which was then supported by Groundspeak?

No disrespect to you Sandy but I would have appreciated a reply from someone I know - as in a UK reviewer.

Finally can I ask you to stop publishing caches that are a 4 or 5 terrain as I can't physically do them as you can see by my photo on the Groundspeak advertisement for Premium members and also my written words. 61, fat and unfit do not do terrain 4 or 5 oh on second thoughts make that a 3 as well

Also you state 'guidelines' - are guidelines actual rules? To my mind there is a big difference between the meanings of the words.

Sorry to be asking so many questions as usually I do not 'stir ' within these forums but I do feel strongly about this

3.1k · January 24, 2012

Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome.

Oh dear - I'm confused. :unsure:

I know it doesn't take much, but I thought I should ask for clarification.

I host a regular pub event, and if events are going to be more stringently reviewed to ensure they're inclusive and all welcome, does this mean that pub events will no longer be allowed?

I only ask because I know of several groups in society that wouldn't go into a pub on religious reasons, and I do not wish to go to the trouble of organising and listing an event if it's to be knocked back, even though we've been meeting in the same pub for the last 5 years.....

I am well aware of the Equalities Act and the "strands" and I wouldn't want to fall foul of the rules - I just want a group of bonkers people to be able to get together and eat, drink and have fun.

This country isn't exactly blessed with the ideal weather to hold year round outdoor events, and pubs are ideal... as long as they don't fall foul of the rules.

:blink:

Edited January 24, 2012 by HazelS

3.3k · January 24, 2012

Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

Absolutely ridiculous. An event cache should be no different to any other type of cache as far as "all welcome" goes. I imagine you are not going to suggest that no underwater caches are placed, or caches up trees? They are in no way "all welcome" and are actually probably the better type of cache. Something different, slightly unique, and slightly challenging.

This is a pity. It was an opportunity to right what a lot of people feel is a wrong decision.

2.2k · January 24, 2012

Clarification on the event cache guidelines and the application of the guidelines by the UK team:

This topic has been discussed by the Groundspeak team, and we support the current application of the event cache guidelines by the UK team. Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome. Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

We will be reminding the reviewing team across the global community about this aspect of the event cache guidelines, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

OK sorry but can I ask you to clear something for me please Sandy? Was this written by Groundspeak? or by the UK team which was then supported by Groundspeak?

No disrespect to you Sandy but I would have appreciated a reply from someone I know - as in a UK reviewer.

Finally can I ask you to stop publishing caches that are a 4 or 5 terrain as I can't physically do them as you can see by my photo on the Groundspeak advertisement for Premium members and also my written words. 61, fat and unfit do not do terrain 4 or 5 oh on second thoughts make that a 3 as well

Also you state 'guidelines' - are guidelines actual rules? To my mind there is a big difference between the meanings of the words.

Sorry to be asking so many questions as usually I do not 'stir ' within these forums but I do feel strongly about this

This is a very valid point, you will see from this page: Disabled people's rights in everyday life

that it would be considered discrimination regarding this act if disabled people "in accessing or becoming a member of a larger private club (25 or more members)" If they were excluded by virtue of events held as described surely that would infringe the act?

just thought you should be aware!

1.3k · January 24, 2012

Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome.

I host a regular pub event, and if events are going to be more stringently reviewed to ensure they're inclusive and all welcome, does this mean that pub events will no longer be allowed?

My interpretation is that you'll be fine. I guess this depends on your (or more likely Groundspeaks) definition of inclusive.... Surely everyone is welcome to attend an event in a "Public House", but some will choose not to based on their own free will and beliefs. Doesn't mean they were excluded, just that they declined to attend.

Jon

2.2k · January 24, 2012

Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome.

I host a regular pub event, and if events are going to be more stringently reviewed to ensure they're inclusive and all welcome, does this mean that pub events will no longer be allowed?

My interpretation is that you'll be fine. I guess this depends on your (or more likely Groundspeaks) definition of inclusive.... Surely everyone is welcome to attend an event in a "Public House", but some will choose not to based on their own free will and beliefs. Doesn't mean they were excluded, just that they declined to attend.

Jon

but it's being held in a location that WE KNOW CLEARLY will exclude a section of the community on the basis of race or religion. It is therefore not open to all, it's not like they have a choice! They have been raised to believe that they are not allowed to enter on pain of being sent to hell. We may not agree with their views but it is most certainly a discriminatory act to hold an event in any public house on this ruling.

1.3k · January 24, 2012

but it's being held in a location that WE KNOW CLEARLY will exclude a section of the community on the basis of race or religion. It is therefore not open to all, it's not like they have a choice! They have been raised to believe that they are not allowed to enter on pain of being sent to hell. We may not agree with their views but it is most certainly a discriminatory act to hold an event in any public house on this ruling.

I'm not getting it... They are not excluded. Through their own choice they decide not to enter, whatever that is based on, religion or otherwise.

The other thing that occurs is that if a cacher and their friends book a couple of tents into a tiny campsite that only has the capacity for two tents, under your proposals they could make a geocaching event of it that would instantly be exclusive to everyone bar them, as no further capacity exists. Is that something you would be for or against?

Jon.

Spelling correction...

Edited January 24, 2012 by Dakar4x4

1.4k · January 24, 2012

Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome.

I host a regular pub event, and if events are going to be more stringently reviewed to ensure they're inclusive and all welcome, does this mean that pub events will no longer be allowed?

My interpretation is that you'll be fine. I guess this depends on your (or more likely Groundspeaks) definition of inclusive.... Surely everyone is welcome to attend an event in a "Public House", but some will choose not to based on their own free will and beliefs. Doesn't mean they were excluded, just that they declined to attend.

Jon

Anybody is welcome to attend a camping event should they wish to do so, all they need is a tent and the will to camp out overnight. If they decide not to do so they are not being excluded it just means that they have declined to attend.

Anybody can do a Scuba cache, all they need to do is a course on diving and buy some equipment. If they don't they are not being excluded it simply means that they cant be bothered with the hassle.

Anybody can do a Kayak/boat cache, all they need to do is buy/hire a boat. 'As above'

All a camping event is an event/cache with a specific requirement.

2.2k · January 24, 2012

i really don't want to have to point out that the company is breaching uk law by allowing the disability discrimination act to be broken by listing an event that disabled people cannot get to when they have said that they will not allow camping only as it is clear discrimination.

likewise pub events because it immediately excludes muslims.

If we can exclude non campers in certain cases then the precedent is set that the company is not being discriminatory to those specific groups because it acknowledges that events cannot be open to all. That in a reasonable world events are listed and it is down to people to decide if they wish to attend or not on an event to event basis.

Once it is clearly stated that the company will not tolerate even the slightest discrimination as regards non campers and that all events must be open to all then they create the issue that every single event has to be open to everyone regardless or ability, race, religion or any other factor. It is the decision that has just been taken that has made this situation arise.

Like i said, we were asking for a common sense approach that allowed the celebration of diversity and not closing down the options left to everyone.

The company chose the other route. I'm sure that this is going to reduce the number of events this year and potentially open the door to some people being accused of things that they never realised they were guilty of.

January 24, 2012

Clarification on the event cache guidelines and the application of the guidelines by the UK team:

This topic has been discussed by the Groundspeak team, and we support the current application of the event cache guidelines by the UK team. Events are inclusive, and all should be welcome. Cache owners of events with overnight stays should consider how they will accommodate the 'all welcome' aspect of the guidelines.

We will be reminding the reviewing team across the global community about this aspect of the event cache guidelines, and thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

OK sorry but can I ask you to clear something for me please Sandy? Was this written by Groundspeak? or by the UK team which was then supported by Groundspeak?

The guidelines are as stated, and we are clarifying two things: we do not intend to change the guidelines in the foreseeable future, and the way that the UK team is applying the guideline is in keeping with the spirit of the current guideline.

3.7k · January 24, 2012

Anyway, why has this just arisen now, nearly a year after the event in question?

It's not.... It's not about any particular camping event, it's about camping events in general...

According to the OP;

Excellent news everyone.

It seems that the powers that be in america have realised the fun of camping events and have made it possible to list camping events as "must sleep overnight" restriction. The exact wording that was allowed by New york adminreviewer was What other event is it acceptable and encouraged that you sleep through the event in order to attend? :-) To log this event, you must sign the log book after spending Saturday night camping with your fellow cachers

Briansnat attended so it must have been ok to list it otherwise such an old and respected reviewer as he would have kicked off big time

Here's the listing for us all to be able to see and use as a proforma :Mid-Winter Geo Survival Campout 2011

...so it's about a particular camping event in February 2011 and the precedent set. The thread may have changed tack since then, but I can't see why it was started so long after the event.

I still haven't a clue why events aren't arranged via Facebook anyway (perhaps with a skeleton listing on Gc.com so that notifications are sent to non-subscribers). Does anyone really care whether they have an "event attended" log as long as they had a good time? People can send their thanks to the Facebook page. Surely the obvious way is to set up an event "cache" which simply refers to the Facebook page (no rules or regulations specified).

camping events

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment