Park n' Grabs

[+flyfshrgrl]

I am still new to geocaching, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the purpose of a "Park 'n Grab, " and why Geocaching allows them.

 

In an attempt to take cachers to an interesting/worthy place, I struggled with some placement issues and some criticizing comments from a reviewer. The reviewer stated that the purpose of geocaching is to get people outside and to interesting places, and yet, this same reviewer allows someone to place a cache under a light skirt at Walgreen's, Pet Smart, a hotel, a fence post at a gas station, to name just a specific few. I just learned about the ignore button and will use it to ignore park 'n grabs, but since Attributes are merely a suggestion and not a requirement, and many hiders do not list a cache as PNG, I've ended up at them and don't know how the ignore feature will prevent me from arriving at one. I signed the log since I was there, but I thought I was going somewhere instead of an disused pay phone booth at the corner of a convenience store, the light skirt outside the pet store at the strip mall, the light skirt at a hotel.

 

In deciding where to hide some caches, I followed Geocaching.com's Getting Started guidelines, particularly this quote, "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat . So, if Geocaching.com is going to use this quote in their Getting Started guidelines, why do they also allow PNGs?

 

I am a very competitive person; I used to coach; I started on an NCAA, Division 1 softball team all four years in college; I set and try to break existing fishing records; I understand the competitiveness, but I do not understand having one set of rules so someone can be competitive, and another set of rules by which others must play.

 

Would someone please explain why Geocaching.com allows park 'n grabs but wants people to not place hides for the purpose of just placing a geocache?

Would someone please explain to me what it is exactly that Geocaching.com wants?

 

Thank you,

flyfshrgrl

[DannyCaffeine]

PNG's can be a good thing if done properly. There are some places that you can park your car at a scenic overlook. In cites one can hide a micro near some art, hotel (for TB trades) or historical building. On top of that these places are easy for people who are physically disabled to get.

 

I do agree that there are a lot of boring PNG's out there though.

Edited May 19, 2012 by DannyCaffeine

[knowschad]

You are going to see a lot of different replies to this one, including at least one with Signal eating an ice cream cone, but I will agree with you. Not that anything can be done about it, or will be done, but many of us share your frustration (while others will point out that not everybody can get out and hike, and not everybody wants to get out and hike). Hide what you like... try to set what you feel is a good example with your hides. That's about all you can do.

[+The Jester]

GC.com wants people to use their services to find caches. While they can *ask* that caches be placed in interesting places, they can't *insist* on it, without becoming judges of which caches are "worthy". And that would be a very slippery slope indeed. You don't see why PNG's should exist, another won't want hiking caches to exist, another won't like micro's of any sort, etc. etc. etc.. Pretty soon there are no caches, because somebody somewhere won't like *that* cache. On the flip side, there will be someone who likes *that* cache. So, who do you please?

 

If PNG's are that much of a bother for you, use more of the mapping available (beyond the OSM maps on the site) and check where the cache you're looking at is placed. If it's in a parking lot, or right next to the road, you might ignore it. There are enough caches out there to please anybody - you just might have to do more work if your definition of a "good" cache is restricted.

[+tozainamboku]

 

It will be interesting when it come out just what problem your reviewer had with your cache. I tend to think that that if the reviewer made a comment that "the purpose of geocaching is to get people outside and to interesting places" there was some other problem than your cache was not at a Walgreen's.

 

This post comes across as saying that because your cache had some issues with the guidelines, you get to complain about caches that are in compliance with the guidelines but are in locations that you don't feel meet the spirit of the quote you found in the Getting Started section.

 

While briansnat may feel that if your only purpose for bringing someone to a place is to find a cache you should find a different spot, this isn't really a guideline that can be enforced. It is probably there to encourage new cachers to think more about where they will place a cache. The reality is that for many geocachers a lamppost at Walgreen's or the fence post at a gas station are perfectly good places for a cache. And while some will say that they placed the cache only for the numbers, the fact is there may reasons - like this area of town could use a few caches for people to come and discover the funky stores or the ethnic food.

 

Some people enjoy park and grabs, particularly those that they can find on their lunch hour or while they are out doing errands. Sure on the weekend they might spend more time taking a hike or driving to a remote location. But there are plenty for whom getting out and exploring means driving to a neighboring town (or a different neighborhood in their own city) and spending an afternoon finding the P&Gs and experiencing a new area.

 

Different people have different ideas about what makes geocaching fun. The guidelines limit some caches, mostly due to legal issues or how geocaching may be perceived by others. But there is nothing in the guidelines to guarantee the quality of any cache or whether or not a particular cacher might enjoy it.

[Keystone]

Caches aren't reviewed based on quality, or based on the reviewer's personal preferences. They are reviewed based upon the listing guidelines.

 

I looked through the history for the reviews of every cache submitted by the OP's account and saw some standard form letter notes for common guideline issues like cache saturation and using additional waypoints. But, I could not locate the critical comments referred to by the OP. I am wondering if there were email exchanges not captured on the cache page, or perhaps that the OP hides caches under more than one account. In the meantime, color me confused.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'm curious to know how you can't tell ahead of time a cache is a park n grab? At least where I am, it's a simple matter of looking on the map and seeing how far it is from the cache to the nearest road?

 

Would someone please explain why Geocaching.com allows park 'n grabs but wants people to not place hides for the purpose of just placing a geocache?

Would someone please explain to me what it is exactly that Geocaching.com wants?

 

Thank you,

flyfshrgrl

 

I like park 'n grabs. I don't always have time to go on a long hike and sometimes it is nice to explore our city without a big time commitment.

 

What you quoted is a guideline, not a law. Geocaching.com wants people to geocache, period. Geocaching is supposed to be F-U-N for *everybody*, whether they are in a wheelchair, have kids with them or are avid hikers. Besides how would Groundspeak enforce "no P&Gs"? It sounds like it would be a big headache for the reviewers (who do not physically check caches before publishing) and introduce alot of negativity into the sport.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I am still new to geocaching, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the purpose of a "Park 'n Grab, " and why Geocaching allows them.

 

In an attempt to take cachers to an interesting/worthy place, I struggled with some placement issues and some criticizing comments from a reviewer.

 

...

 

I am a very competitive person; I used to coach; I started on an NCAA, Division 1 softball team all four years in college; I set and try to break existing fishing records; I understand the competitiveness, but I do not understand having one set of rules so someone can be competitive, and another set of rules by which others must play.

 

1. Kudos, keep it up, you are doing it right, in my opinion.

 

2. This isn't a competition. Seriously! At least, there's no score - at least not one that is officially recorded. There are a variety of statistics one can take - trying to use about any of them as a "score" just doesn't make much sense, in my opinion, pretty much for the reasons you've observed.

[+flyfshrgrl]

It seems that my question has been misunderstood, and I promise you, if I were complaining, I would let you know up front. My caches have been published, so that is a moot point.

 

I am trying to understand contradicting rules Geocaching.com has laid out. Unless I am wrong, a reviewer is an extension and representative of Geocaching.com and judges the cache before it's made public.

 

Yes, briansnat made the quote, but it was Geocaching.com who chose to publish the quote on their webpage as a guideline for people to follow, so obviously, Geocaching.com believes the quote and has an expectation for people to follow it.

 

I am lost regarding the hiking comment. I don't know what caused it nor why it came up, so I can not comment on it, other than, hiking was not my original statement nor my intent. I never thought about it being a boring cache, but agree with DannyCaffeine; they are boring, but boring was not my reason for the post, either.

 

It is not about what someone likes or doesn't like. People obviously liked Virtual Caches, because Virtuals were created, and while they are not published now, they are still hunted and reported and recorded.

 

This post is about figuring out what the rules are, which again brings me back to the origin of the post. A Geocaching.com Reviewer stated the purpose of the geocache is to get people outside and to interesting places. Geocaching.com chooses to use someone else's quote on their website giving instructions as to how to get started to place a cache, so they support the quote even though they did not say it. I fail to see how a Walgreen's or Petco parking lot light post are interesting places. I am hard pressed to believe that it is getting people outside. It is getting people into their cars and spending money on petroleum. I do understand DannyCaffeine's statement, but am trying to compare the removed pay phone from a booth at a convenience store or the wooden fence post near the dumpster at a gas station as interesting or done properly.

 

These caches are judged prior to publishing, but on what criteria are they judged? Why bother with making statements about what to do, if it does not matter what people do? If the goal is to accumulate as many happy faces as possible, then, why not just say that? Why promote confusion, especially to people who are new and working at trying to learn the game and figure out how it operates?

[+tozainamboku]

These caches are judged prior to publishing, but on what criteria are they judged? Why bother with making statements about what to do, if it does not matter what people do? If the goal is to accumulate as many happy faces as possible, then, why not just say that? Why promote confusion, especially to people who are new and working at trying to learn the game and figure out how it operates?

Geocaches are reviewed prior to publication for compliance to the guidelines. They are not judge according to anybody's (including a reviewer) perception of quality. While your reviewer's comments (and the selection of briansnat's quote by the website) may be meant to encourage someone's idea of quality, these are not attributes that are used in deciding what caches to publish. In fact, while many people find park and grabs boring or "lame", or don't see a point in having a geocache placed in a parking lot, there are many geocachers who enjoy finding these caches. People tend to hide cache that the enjoy finding. For some people there are limits on how far they can travel or how much time can be spent searching. Having lots of urban hides in one neighborhood provides these people with an enjoyable experience. For others, findkng lots of caches is enjoyable. Perhaps they have a competitive streak, as you do, and the ability to find a large number of caches and watch their find count increase is enjoyable. The trick is to not get get into a competition with them. If you don't enjoy finding park and grabs, there are ways to ignore them. Pick the caches you think you're most likely going to enjoy, and let others pick the kinds of caches they might enjoy.

[+steben6]

It seems that my question has been misunderstood, and I promise you, if I were complaining, I would let you know up front. My caches have been published, so that is a moot point.

 

I am trying to understand contradicting rules Geocaching.com has laid out. Unless I am wrong, a reviewer is an extension and representative of Geocaching.com and judges the cache before it's made public.

 

Yes, briansnat made the quote, but it was Geocaching.com who chose to publish the quote on their webpage as a guideline for people to follow, so obviously, Geocaching.com believes the quote and has an expectation for people to follow it.

 

I am lost regarding the hiking comment. I don't know what caused it nor why it came up, so I can not comment on it, other than, hiking was not my original statement nor my intent. I never thought about it being a boring cache, but agree with DannyCaffeine; they are boring, but boring was not my reason for the post, either.

 

It is not about what someone likes or doesn't like. People obviously liked Virtual Caches, because Virtuals were created, and while they are not published now, they are still hunted and reported and recorded.

 

This post is about figuring out what the rules are, which again brings me back to the origin of the post. A Geocaching.com Reviewer stated the purpose of the geocache is to get people outside and to interesting places. Geocaching.com chooses to use someone else's quote on their website giving instructions as to how to get started to place a cache, so they support the quote even though they did not say it. I fail to see how a Walgreen's or Petco parking lot light post are interesting places. I am hard pressed to believe that it is getting people outside. It is getting people into their cars and spending money on petroleum. I do understand DannyCaffeine's statement, but am trying to compare the removed pay phone from a booth at a convenience store or the wooden fence post near the dumpster at a gas station as interesting or done properly.

 

These caches are judged prior to publishing, but on what criteria are they judged? Why bother with making statements about what to do, if it does not matter what people do? If the goal is to accumulate as many happy faces as possible, then, why not just say that? Why promote confusion, especially to people who are new and working at trying to learn the game and figure out how it operates?

I certainly understand your concerns, but all of these issues (brought up for the second time, it seems) have been addressed in one way or another.

Guidelines are simply that...guidelines. What may be boring or pointless to you may not be for some other cacher, so just enjoy the ones you like to find. Please don't judge or criticize the ones you don't like, because others may prefer them.

I think GS and the reviewers do an excellent job of allowing all types of caches for all types of cachers to enjoy without over-regulating them or trying to assess the "wow" factor for each cache (which is, indeed, a slippery slope). I don't believe there is any conflict in a SUGGESTION to place caches in interesting places and enforcing restrictions on saturation, placement near schools, etc.

I know this will be hard for you to understand, but we actually have found some rather interesting caches in parking lots.

I also know some people who would not go after a cache if they had to hike even .2 of a mile - that's just not their thing. They prefer easier caches you can drive to a parking lot, and more power to them! There's no judgement there...to each his/her own. Just enjoy the game the way you want. There is a place for every kind of cache because everybody enjoys the hobby in their own way.

So, find the ones you enjoy, and don't do the ones you don't enjoy. Somebody else will enjoy them. Happy Caching!!

[+flyfshrgrl]

 

Geocaches are reviewed prior to publication for compliance to the guidelines.

 

My opinion, boring or exciting, of the cache is also a moot point. What are the guidelines? All I seem to be getting is personal opinions as to what people like and why and an odd defense of the cache, instead of an explanation of the guidelines and what Geocaching.com wants and intends.

 

I do find it interesting that the quote Geocaching.com chose to use is under their Placement guidelines, which turn out to be as clear as a churned up, 30-year old cesspool.

 

Table of Contents

 

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

 

[+Mr.Benchmark]

This post is about figuring out what the rules are, which again brings me back to the origin of the post. A Geocaching.com Reviewer stated the purpose of the geocache is to get people outside and to interesting places. Geocaching.com chooses to use someone else's quote on their website giving instructions as to how to get started to place a cache, so they support the quote even though they did not say it. I fail to see how a Walgreen's or Petco parking lot light post are interesting places. I am hard pressed to believe that it is getting people outside. It is getting people into their cars and spending money on petroleum. I do understand DannyCaffeine's statement, but am trying to compare the removed pay phone from a booth at a convenience store or the wooden fence post near the dumpster at a gas station as interesting or done properly.

 

These caches are judged prior to publishing, but on what criteria are they judged? Why bother with making statements about what to do, if it does not matter what people do? If the goal is to accumulate as many happy faces as possible, then, why not just say that? Why promote confusion, especially to people who are new and working at trying to learn the game and figure out how it operates?

 

1. Geocaching.com is highly unlikely to ever arbiter quality of a cache. Among other things - doing so would not promote the growth of the game.

 

2. How would a reviewer decide that someplace was interesting or not? I've done plenty of LPC's that sucked. I've done some that were used in place of virtual caches that were cool. How would a reviewer ever know which was which? He wouldn't.

 

3. The statement they quote from Briansnat is, I believe, a "best practices" type statement. Yes, they'd like it if everyone hid caches in interesting places. No, they have no practical way to enforce this, and in fact the reviewers make no such attempt to enforce it. It is literally uneforceable, even if they wanted to do so.

 

4. My personal opinon is that the folks who run this site are not really big rules and regulations people - that they like loose, minimal sets of rules.

 

5. Were they to attempt to enforce some type of "this location has merit" metric, it would be exceedingly subjective. They tried this with virtual caches - it failed.

 

6. Other sites that have attempted to implement a quality metric have not been very successful at it either.

 

7. If you have a highly logical and orderly mind, I would advise you to NOT try to wrap your mind around the logic built into the guidelines. You'll go nuts.

 

8. Even if somehow someone came up with a fair and near perfect system to weed out "lame parking lot caches" in favor of "interesting location caches" (which might still be in a parking lot, as it happens), it isn't going to get implemented as it would be bad for business. I don't mean that to be cynical - a person ignores "bad for business" at their peril. (Circular reference back to point 1.)

 

Most of the rules deal with avoiding situations that cause problems with property owners, especially big, powerful property owners like park managers who can decide scary things like "there will be no geocaching in the parks I manage." They are also intended to avoid becoming a nuisance to private property owners. They are also intended to space out caches so that you don't trip over 3 caches you weren't looking for while finding the one you were seeking.

 

BTW, the examples you give are generally not very interesting in my opinion either. Unfortunately, my opinion (or yours) will matter not one iota in this regard. People will hide these caches. People will seek them. People will seek them A LOT.

[+Chrysalides]

I initially read your opening post as a reviewer rejected your cache because it wasn't good enough. I've re-read it and see that I was mistaken. Your reviewer (and Groundspeak) tries to encourage you to place "interesting" caches. Groundspeak's guidelines never said that boring caches will not be published if it meets the placement guidelines. Unless you can show that your hides were not published only because they were P&G while others were, your assertion of "having one set of rules so someone can be competitive, and another set of rules by which others must play" is unwarranted.

[+palmetto]

I looked through the history for the reviews of every cache submitted by the OP's account and saw some standard form letter notes for common guideline issues like cache saturation and using additional waypoints. But, I could not locate the critical comments referred to by the OP. I am wondering if there were email exchanges not captured on the cache page, or perhaps that the OP hides caches under more than one account.

 

Agreeing with Keystone, bolding of text, mine.

 

I'm guessing that you took two differnt things, and combined them.

 

Those 2 things being the briansnat quote that you've referenced, and part of the cut-and-paste cache saturation note by the reviewer. That note quotes something that used to be in the saturation guideline, but has recently been removed, "The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

I don't think the reviewer offered any criticism re "interesting"; the guideline formerly suggested that you find a place that's "new" enough to be at least 528 feet from any existing cache.

 

There's no attempt made to enforce "interesting". If it's interesting enough to the cache owner to place there, it's interesting enough.

 

Hiding is very much more difficult and technical then finding. Kudos to hiders who get any cache published.

[+briansnat]

 

Geocaches are reviewed prior to publication for compliance to the guidelines.

 

My opinion, boring or exciting, of the cache is also a moot point. What are the guidelines? All I seem to be getting is personal opinions as to what people like and why and an odd defense of the cache, instead of an explanation of the guidelines and what Geocaching.com wants and intends.

 

I do find it interesting that the quote Geocaching.com chose to use is under their Placement guidelines, which turn out to be as clear as a churned up, 30-year old cesspool.

 

Table of Contents

 

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

 

I believe that the reasoning behind using that quote was to encourage the placement of higher quality caches. It's not a guideline however. Cache quality is a highly subjective matter. Heck, people travel from all over the world to do the ET Highway series, which to me is the epitome of lame. 1,000+ park and grabs every .1 mile, gag me with a spoon! Since cache quality is so subjective it would be unwise to ask reviewers to include quality in the review process. As a reviewer I've published hundreds, if not thousands of caches that I personally would not want to hunt. Sometimes I wonder what the CO could possibly be thinking when I read text on the cache page like "this parking lot needed a cache" or "another lame park and grab". I hold my nose and publish because they comply with the guidelines.

 

For the sake of argument, say there was a quality guideline. How would it be enforced? Even with reviewing based strictly on the guidelines there is some variation among the reviewers regarding how they are interpreted. Imagine if something as subjective as quality was introduced into the review process. You think there is inconsistency among reviewers now, just wait. The so called "wow factor" for virtuals was an experiment that allowed reviewers to judge cache quality and it was a miserable failure.

 

I agree with you in principle and I dislike the proliferation of the sort of caches that you're complaining about. I believe that they take geocaching in the wrong direction. I also hate that they create a huge chaff field and make finding the caches that I like a chore. But apparently most geocachers are in this game for a different reason than I am. So I can either quit and fish and hike more, or concentrate on finding and hiding the kinds of caches that I enjoy.

Edited May 19, 2012 by briansnat

[4wheelin_fool]

Actually, most "park and grabs" violate the guidelines, as they are on private property without permission. Most reviewers publish them anyhow, if it is a commercial area open to the public, and the business does not have a geocaching policy. This seems fine for areas owned by the public, but for privately owned property it is twisting the meaning of a bit. However most places will welcome the extra traffic, as long as the cache is not hidden in a spot where they store items, and the cachers do not go after hours, then the permission is deemed "adequate" or "implied". The process has been repeated so many times, I suppose it would be difficult to stop, as the majority of hiders have grown accustomed to the way things are, and feel entitled to have them continue that way.

[+Ike 13]

The 'Big 3' Guidelines that are heavily enforced (IMO)

 

1) Caches are never buried

2) They do not damage, deface, nor destroy public property

3) They must be 528 feet from any other physical cache or cache stage.

 

The others are just guidelines and can be changed. For example there are about a half-dozen caches on school property around me. Each has explicit permission and heavy details about visiting hours on the page.

 

briansnat's quote is an encouragement for hiders to make something more than a pill bottle under a lamp post, BUT as long as it meets those big 3 guidelines it will be published. I will say a small percentage of parking lot caches will turn out to be very cool.

[Mr.Yuck]

I looked through the history for the reviews of every cache submitted by the OP's account and saw some standard form letter notes for common guideline issues like cache saturation and using additional waypoints. But, I could not locate the critical comments referred to by the OP. I am wondering if there were email exchanges not captured on the cache page, or perhaps that the OP hides caches under more than one account.

 

Agreeing with Keystone, bolding of text, mine.

 

I'm guessing that you took two differnt things, and combined them.

 

Those 2 things being the briansnat quote that you've referenced, and part of the cut-and-paste cache saturation note by the reviewer. That note quotes something that used to be in the saturation guideline, but has recently been removed, "The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

I don't think the reviewer offered any criticism re "interesting"; the guideline formerly suggested that you find a place that's "new" enough to be at least 528 feet from any existing cache.

 

There's no attempt made to enforce "interesting". If it's interesting enough to the cache owner to place there, it's interesting enough.

 

Hiding is very much more difficult and technical then finding. Kudos to hiders who get any cache published.

 

Yeah, you probably combined the ideas in the copy and paste note, and the text from BrianSnat. That text not being surprising, I think they rewrote it, but there used to be a "guide to hiding your first cache" that contained similar language that some of us old-schoolers would often reference when debating the "defenders of lame" here in the forums.

 

It's very refreshing to see newer cachers who don't like park-n-grabs. I've met and even become geo-pals with couple myself, and have seen a handful here in the forums. They're like "what is this parking lot nonsense?"

[+KenaiBill]

Geocacaching is different things to different people. That is why it is so popular. I use PNGs when I need to Get off the highway for a moment and do not have time for an adventure. Get a grip and only do caches that interest you and I will only do the ones that interest me. This is not an elitist sport.

[4wheelin_fool]

So you play your albums,

and you smoke your pot

and you go find the caches in the parking lot

Oh but still you're aching for the things you haven't got

What went wrong?

And if you can't understand why your world is so dead,

why you've got to keep in style and feed your head

thousands of finds, but still muggles make you red,

And that's not wrong...?

Edited May 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Legochugglers]

This thread will once again follow the ever-present debate between what constitutes a lame 'park & grab' against, at the other extreme, a hike to a wonderful beauty spot that cachers wouldn't normally visit.

 

I agree with the view that 'park & grab' caches have their place. I will pick a few of these up to break up a journey (or various other excuses) but I think the crux of the debate is where these type of 'park & grab' caches start to completely dominate the geocaching in an area. It would be interesting for a 'stats' person to work out exactly what percentage of caches are considered P & G and what the trend is. I think I know the answer and of course the whole definition is very subjective.

 

To address the original comment from the OP, I do think that Groundspeak may need to consider re-assessing the information that they provide when someone makes a new placement. Reviewers are unable to challenge the quality, so Groundspeak ought to make a better job of educating new placers. I appreciate that there are some guidelines to placement, however as part of the process of submitting the cache listing the new placer has to watch a full 'video link' which can't be skipped, which clearly and concisely emphasises the sentiment quoted in the guidelines that the OP referred to. This could go into some detail regarding NOT placing containers just for the sake of it and a range of other perceived ills and negatives. It would not stop all lame caches but surely it would help eradicate a lot of them and improve overall quality. Just a thought?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Legochugglers

[+Lil Devil]

Let's imagine for a second that reviewers do judge caches based on quality. Who's idea of quality? Well, the reviewer's of course.

 

Say I am like the OP and don't like park & grabs. So I use my own sense of quality and I won't publish any cache that is less than 100 feet from parking.

 

A fellow reviewer in my area is disabled. He can't walk very far without discomfort. So he uses his own sense of quality and won't publish any cache that is more than 100 feet from parking.

 

So you have a 50/50 chance of your cache getting published, depending on who happens to review it.

 

Be careful what you ask for.

[+Don_J]

 

Geocaches are reviewed prior to publication for compliance to the guidelines.

 

My opinion, boring or exciting, of the cache is also a moot point. What are the guidelines? All I seem to be getting is personal opinions as to what people like and why and an odd defense of the cache, instead of an explanation of the guidelines and what Geocaching.com wants and intends.

 

I do find it interesting that the quote Geocaching.com chose to use is under their Placement guidelines, which turn out to be as clear as a churned up, 30-year old cesspool.

 

Table of Contents

 

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

 

FWIW, I never understood why they took one player's opinion from a forum post and put it at the top of their guidelines. It is not a guideline. It is Brian's opinion, one that most share, but it is not a guideline that must be followed in order to get your geocache published. I'm sure it was put there to have people use a bit of though about where and why they were placing caches, but the fact is, you can place a geocache for the simple reason of placing a geocache and there is no rule that you have to "find another spot".

[+Don_J]

 

7. If you have a highly logical and orderly mind, I would advise you to NOT try to wrap your mind around the logic built into the guidelines. You'll go nuts.

 

 

That needs to be a sig line...

[Mr.Yuck]

Geocacaching is different things to different people. That is why it is so popular. I use PNGs when I need to Get off the highway for a moment and do not have time for an adventure. Get a grip and only do caches that interest you and I will only do the ones that interest me. This is not an elitist sport.

 

Are you replying to me? Because your post is below mine, and really doesn't seem to be addressing any of the points the original poster made. Believe, me, I have a grip. Not the first time I've been called an elitist though.

[+uxorious]

I've thought about this a lot, and think I have a grasp on how I feel about MY geocaching.

 

There really are two things that draw me to this game. One is finding a well hidden box in an out of the way spot. The other goes back to when I was young, and used to watch a lot of spy movies, and tv shows. I also read a lot of spy books.

 

When I'm short of time I can go find a parking lot or guard rail cache, and get a little of that feeling of being in on a secret. (Note this is not a consious thought, but a feeling I only understood by thinking about it. )

 

But most of the time I enjoy a larger cache in a nice area, with maybe a little bit of a walk.

 

I also think that, while every great view, historic spot, or some other WOW spot needs a geocache. Not every geocache needs to be at a great view, historic spot, or some other WOW spot.

 

A nicely hidden box at a random spot on a trail works for me. If I'm short on time, a P&G is just fine.

[+Legochugglers]

 

7. If you have a highly logical and orderly mind, I would advise you to NOT try to wrap your mind around the logic built into the guidelines. You'll go nuts.

 

 

That needs to be a sig line...

If my mind was in order I wouldnt be searching for plastic containers in the undergrowth and then debating with the world the correct way to do it!

[+Mr.Benchmark]

7. If you have a highly logical and orderly mind, I would advise you to NOT try to wrap your mind around the logic built into the guidelines. You'll go nuts.

 

 

That needs to be a sig line...

 

Okie dokie - I'll set it.

 

BTW, another and I think significant reason we have lots of parking lot Park-n-grabs is that frankly they are easier to place:

 

1. The expense of a micro container is negligable - especially if you don't care that the container is especially waterproof. A pill bottle you are going to throw away, some tape (if you are fancy), paper. Total investment - $0.01.

 

2. Most property owners will neither notice nor care that you have a cache in an unobtrusive spot in their parking lot.

 

3. You can access these places 24/7 for the most part. The police simply don't care that you are there most of the time, provided you aren't damanging anything or messing with the store.

 

4. Research for placing your cache is essentially 0 - if you needed to stop in to buy a quart of milk and there's no cache within 0.1 miles - BLAM you're done.

 

Contrast this with a more involved hide:

 

1. You will be investing several dollars into a nice, water tight container, log, pen and swag. Total investment - at least $2-$3, often, much, much more

 

2. You will need to scout for a cool location. This will often (but not always), involve a moderate amount of walking. Oh the horror.

 

3. Once you find an awesome spot, you have to deal with permissions - for example, for many parks (either local or state or national):

 

a. You often need permission to place a cache at all - or at least let them know what you are doing.

 

b. Sometimes they'll want to micro-manage your placement

 

c. Some parks insist on a fairly hefty permit fee for placing caches.

 

d. Often there are restricted hours of access that you must deal with

 

Parking lot P-n-G's have another thing going for them too - they get lots of visits.

 

Now you may ask yourself "how is it fair to compete with someone who only invests $0.01 and zero time into a cache with my elaborate cache where I've spent $30 and 20 hours of my time dealing with research, construction, and placement?" If you put it that way - it is absolutely not fair at all.

 

But like I said - it's not intended to be a competition.

[+terrkan78]

Would someone please explain why Geocaching.com allows park 'n grabs but wants people to not place hides for the purpose of just placing a geocache?

Would someone please explain to me what it is exactly that Geocaching.com wants?

I think the inconsistency can be explained with some history. At geocaching's inception, most of the people who had GPS units were hikers/outdoor-types. Most of the caches were hidden in places that were scenic, involved a hike, etc. Geocaching evolved (some would say "devolved") over the years to more urban hides, more micros, more park & grabs, etc.

 

Recently geocaching.com has started a push for quality. They added favorite points. They started encouraging quality hides in their monthly blog/weekly newsletters, they added things like that quote to their guidelines webpage (at least I think that's a recent addition? - not sure). The actual guidelines haven't changed much. The guidelines still allow placement of park & grabs, etc. And I suspect the guidelines will always allow placement of park & grabs, etc. (I mean, the total number of geocaches would drop astronomically if they stopped publishing park & grabs - that'd be a bad business decision on their part.)

 

If I had to guess what it is geocaching.com wants, I'd say they'd like to see people take pride in their hides (irregardless of the type/style of hide). It's not the sort of thing they can exactly enforce with guidelines, but they can encourage it. I'd also say that they want to make some money, and banning park & grabs from the game would have to hurt that. I don't think they see a problem, per se, with park & grabs (nor do I). Some park & grabs are actually pretty cool (ie. hidden in plain sight but so cleverly camouflaged that you look at it ten times before spotting it, etc. - even though the location wasn't anything special, the hide was).

[Mr.Yuck]

This thread will once again follow the ever-present debate between what constitutes a lame 'park & grab' against, at the other extreme, a hike to a wonderful beauty spot that cachers wouldn't normally visit.

 

I agree with the view that 'park & grab' caches have their place. I will pick a few of these up to break up a journey (or various other excuses) but I think the crux of the debate is where these type of 'park & grab' caches start to completely dominate the geocaching in an area. It would be interesting for a 'stats' person to work out exactly what percentage of caches are considered P & G and what the trend is. I think I know the answer and of course the whole definition is very subjective.

 

 

Exactly! If I had a nickel for every person who ever said p&g micros "have their place", I'd be a rich man. Seriously. They usually go on to say "I'll pick up a few on a long day of caching", or on a road trip. But rarely, or maybe this is the first time ever, do they address what happens when they become the dominant type of cache out there. Does AnyCity, U.S.A. and it's immediate suburbs need p&g micros in parking lots to be over 50% of the caching choices? The whole "they have their place" argument works fine if they were like 10% of the caches in a certain area. You know, like in 2005 or something? Maybe I even said "they have their place" back then.

 

Oh, you'd never get any accurate results trying to figure out which p&g's are "for the numbers" under lampskirts vs. "good" p&g's. For example, i found a nano under a bench next to a 30 foot high waterfall last weekend. All you could do is figure out percentage of micros in a certain area. Which I could show you is well over 50% for many "anycity, U.S.A" locations.

[+Chrysalides]

So you play your albums,

and you smoke your pot

and you go find the caches in the parking lot...

There's a problem with this song. You omitted the part that goes :

 

You'd like to find a little hole in the ground

 

Obviously, digging is not allowed under the guidelines

[+tozainamboku]

 

7. If you have a highly logical and orderly mind, I would advise you to NOT try to wrap your mind around the logic built into the guidelines. You'll go nuts.

 

 

That needs to be a sig line...

The guidelines per se would be quite logical if you stop trying to get them to do things they weren't intended for and accept that as guidelines they are meant to have a certain degree of flexibility.

 

What is confusing in that in an attempt to simplify and clarify the guidelines, Groundspeak lackeys have made some changes that make it more difficult to discern the rationale behind them.

 

I've complained numerous times about the placement of the logging of physical caches guidelines. The original intent of restricting additional logging requirements is somewhat diluted by this arrangement. Some people who want a rule that says "Thou shalt sign the physical log before thou may log a find online" now want to interpret this guideline as saying that. (It doesn't).

 

The saturation guideline use to be one of the few that actually had the rationale stated in the guideline. In a recent update that rationale was removed. Now someone looks at the saturation guideline sees an arbitrary rule. Reviewers have far less flexibility to make exceptions. It may be easier for some reviewers to simply click publish or archive depending on the distance the software reports to nearest cache, but it leaves cachers wondering why a perfectly good spot is not allowed that is 490 ft as crow flies but a mile trek to to get across a river and up to the top of a cliff.

 

Adding quotes about thinking about the reason you picked a spot doesn't help either. Groundspeak may wish to encourage what they thing are better caches, but this statement has nothing to do with the guidelines or the rationale for any of them. It simply confuses people who are trying to understand just what the guidelines are.

 

I have on several occasions requested that Groundspeak publish the rationale for each of the guidelines. They don't seem to want to this. I think in some cases, new employees who weren't around when a particular guideline was first added, have no idea the of why it is there in the first place. The guidelines are treated more and more like an arbitrary set of rules. The wording is simplified to "this is allowed" or "this isn't allowed". The traditional ability of reviewers to make exceptions has been eliminated. Everyone now knows what you can or can't do, but nobody knows why anymore. It's a shame we've come to this.

[Keystone]

Let's imagine for a second that reviewers do judge caches based on quality. Who's idea of quality? Well, the reviewer's of course.

 

Say I am like the OP and don't like park & grabs. So I use my own sense of quality and I won't publish any cache that is less than 100 feet from parking.

 

A fellow reviewer in my area is disabled. He can't walk very far without discomfort. So he uses his own sense of quality and won't publish any cache that is more than 100 feet from parking.

 

So you have a 50/50 chance of your cache getting published, depending on who happens to review it.

 

Be careful what you ask for.

If I was allowed to "enforce" the BrianSnat quote and the "get people outdoors" concept, I would archive any and all mystery/unknown/puzzle caches except those that are only solvable in the field. Every minute spent indoors solving a puzzle is a minute that I'm not spending outdoors.

 

Plus, I personally suck at solving puzzles. I just checked, and of my more than 4700 cache finds, I spent time at home working on puzzles for a grand total of four of them.

 

Be careful what you ask for.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Keystone

[+Chrysalides]

The guidelines per se would be quite logical if you stop trying to get them to do things they weren't intended for and accept that as guidelines they are meant to have a certain degree of flexibility.

Have to agree with Toz on this one. Unless you want the guidelines to be as much fun as the U.S. tax code, don't expect it to spell out every single conceivable circumstance for you.

[+Dan2099]

Well I like PnG's because sometimes if I have time to kill I will use them as time wasters. Also I agree If done well they can be a lot of fun I seen one that was just a flat black magnet and the other side was the log and it was on a old telephone pole blended in perfectly...

 

I also assume they allow PnG's simply because they want to allow Everyone to enjoy in the fun like the elderly and the disabled. A simple fix would be just to ignore these, PnG's is you dislike them from reading a description I can normally tell if it's gonna be the lame light pole or not.

 

Also I once asked a simple question on protocol and got too many different answers all from "experts" most people want to turn this game into a job and kill the fun I say cache how you want too.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Dan2099

[+Legochugglers]

Well I like PnG's because sometimes if I have time to kill I will use them as time wasters. Also I agree If done well they can be a lot of fun I seen one that was just a flat black magnet and the other side was the log and it was on a old telephone pole blended in perfectly...

 

I also assume they allow PnG's simply because they want to allow Everyone to enjoy in the fun like the elderly and the disabled. A simple fix would be just to ignore these, PnG's is you dislike them from reading a description I can normally tell if it's gonna be the lame light pole or not.

 

Also I once asked a simple question on protocol and got too many different answers all from "experts" most people want to turn this game into a job and kill the fun I say cache how you want too.

 

I think we have already agreed with your comment and the previous ones about 'guidelines'. This is exactly why I made the point about EDUCATION. Surely you would prefer that PnG cache to be a little more interesting. Surely we should encourage people to express themselves, challenge the guidelines and make every cache they place something that is a little different. Posting videos of inspirational/different caches on you tube inspired a lot of cachers to give more thought to the type and place that they hid a cache and maybe Groundspeak ought to follow suit.

As I stated in a previous post, if placers had to watch a mandatory video showing inspirational hides before placing one themselves I hope they may just give that extra thought to where/what they are placing. Additionally the video could demonstrate the reasons and downsides to bad cache placement then some real foundation could be clearly aired to support the guidelines and the whole ethos behind Geocaching.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The guidelines per se would be quite logical if you stop trying to get them to do things they weren't intended for and accept that as guidelines they are meant to have a certain degree of flexibility.

Have to agree with Toz on this one. Unless you want the guidelines to be as much fun as the U.S. tax code, don't expect it to spell out every single conceivable circumstance for you.

 

The US Tax code is your idea of the product of a logical and orderly mind?

 

There is a certain amount of creative anarchy in this game. That is, I believe, a part of its attraction for some. The OP struck me as someone with an orderly mind. Such a person would do well to simply accept the guidelines, and not worry overmuch about seemingly illogical things. That was my only point. Her question was totally logical.

 

If you feel the guidelines are logical, well ok then. I'm not going to pretend that I do, however, don't feel bad - logic isn't always the answer either.

 

In any case, I meant in no way to disparage the guidelines. Logical or not, obviously they work.

[+Harry Dolphin]

It's all about the money! As GPS units became cheaper and more common, so did the geocachers and the geocaches. A corollary to the dumbing of America is "Give them what they want, if they'll pay for it." Compare tv shows now to those ten years ago.

Seven years ago, there were very few micros or cache and dashes. Now, that's most of what I see being published. Micros in the woods??? Unheard of. Now far too common. That medicine bottle cost you a penny. Hiding an ammo can over there would be expensive! ($10?)

I'm not above searching for them. It gets me out of the house. And we might see cows! (Or bears.) And I even do have a number of micros. But those will bring you to beautiful or interesting places.

But the important thing is that a lot of new users brings Groundspeak more money, and keeps them in business, to keep me intertained! And, for me, that is important! I'll mix and match hunting for mystery caches, cache and dashes, ammo cans in the woods. It keeps me happy. And that's why I am a member.

[+T.D.M.22]

Since reviewers do not actually go out to the cache location, they have no way of enforcing a rule about PnG's. How do you even know that the spot is not special-sure most of them are there just to have a cache-I'm guilty of doing that-But maybe the spot IS special to that person-where they met a girlfriend, where they hung out as kids, who knows? The thing is what makes a location special, and quality of caches can not be quantified. I think they are great for newbies who want to get their confidence up on easy caches, or maybe someone who just needs an easy one for a cache a day challenge.

[+Don_J]

It just occurred to me, my most favorited cache is a P&G in the city,(container and location). My second most is a P&G along a dirt road in the dessert,(location). My third is a 3.5 mile hike into the mountains, (Container and location). Fourth is back to P&G in the city, (container).

 

P&Gs have their place if they are done right. One of my newer ones is a bit disappointing to me as out of ten finds, it has no favorites, and all the logs are generic but one. It brings you to an industrial street that the city has transformed into a lush garden and has demonstrated how they can take rain water right off the street and sidewalk and filter back into the water table, water that normally would be channeled all the way to the ocean. The cache is on a interpretive sign that explains the process. The finders seem to be oblivious to all of this and only see a bison tube and a smiley on the web site.

 

I guess the answer to why so many so called lame caches are allowed is because people like to find them.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I am lost regarding the hiking comment. I don't know what caused it nor why it came up, so I can not comment on it, other than, hiking was not my original statement nor my intent. I never thought about it being a boring cache, but agree with DannyCaffeine; they are boring, but boring was not my reason for the post, either.

 

You seem to be against P&Gs. More accurately, I think what you are against is boring caches in boring locations. There are alot of P&Gs at very interesting locations.

 

By definition, P&Gs require little exercise to get. This is why I brought up the hiking. If it's not a P&G, it's a cache that requires walking or hiking to get to. And the point I was making is that not everybody is physically able to or desires to go the distance to get these. This is why I think P&Gs should be allowed.

Edited May 20, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[Mr.Yuck]

Well I like PnG's because sometimes if I have time to kill I will use them as time wasters. Also I agree If done well they can be a lot of fun I seen one that was just a flat black magnet and the other side was the log and it was on a old telephone pole blended in perfectly...

 

I also assume they allow PnG's simply because they want to allow Everyone to enjoy in the fun like the elderly and the disabled. A simple fix would be just to ignore these, PnG's is you dislike them from reading a description I can normally tell if it's gonna be the lame light pole or not.

 

 

I am neither elderly nor disabled. Nor are the overwhelming majority of the Geocaching populace. All you have to do is attend a few events, and look around, if it wasn't obvious without even doing that. But you didn't hit that point too hard, like many have in the past. Really? We need 50% of the caches in an urban core to be p&g micros because like 3% of Geocachers are elderly or disabled? I'll never buy that one, as insensitive as that may seem to some of you with bleeding hearts out there.

 

Oh yes, I've been living by the "don't like them, don't find them" credo since such caches first started showing up in my area in mid-2005, about a year and a half after I started. Pretty simple. But you'd be surprised at how many people run out and find everything listed on the website, and still complain about them. I can't speak for them.

[+niraD]

Would someone please explain why Geocaching.com allows park 'n grabs but wants people to not place hides for the purpose of just placing a geocache?

I know parents who want their kids to be loving, responsible people. Sometimes, all they can do to enforce basic household rules like "Don't hit your sister" and "No TV until you finish your homework".

 

Groundspeak may want everyone to hide amazing caches in stunning locations, but the guidelines as enforced are much more modest.

[niverson92]

maybe i want to show you my BA lamp post.

[+Max and 99]

Just saying....

 

Around here you can easily tell which caches are park and grabs when looking at the map. If you really don't want to find park-and-grabs, zoom in on the map, and see where the cache is located before you leave the house to find it.

[+Chrysalides]

The US Tax code is your idea of the product of a logical and orderly mind?

 

No, the U.S. tax code is my idea of a set of rules that attempts to cover everything comprehensively, without ambiguity. I have no idea if it does, because I have never met anyone who claims to understand it in its entirety. I have a hard enough time with the extremely small slice that applies to me, and I have to say it appears to be unambiguous as far as I could tell, much to my dismay.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The US Tax code is your idea of the product of a logical and orderly mind?

 

No, the U.S. tax code is my idea of a set of rules that attempts to cover everything comprehensively, without ambiguity. I have no idea if it does, because I have never met anyone who claims to understand it in its entirety. I have a hard enough time with the extremely small slice that applies to me, and I have to say it appears to be unambiguous as far as I could tell, much to my dismay.

 

I never said we needed a comprehensive set of rules - your words, not mine. I am not going to debate you about the US tax code - my experience is different than yours, let's just leave it at that. If yours was relatively simple and unambiguous (and hopefully relatively painless), then I'm happy for you - seriously.

 

I simply pointed out that I think they are illogical in some ways, and that people who want a very orderly set of rules, especially for some competitive forms of geocaching are going to be VERY disappointed if they try to understand the rules in that light. The OP mentioned her competitive nature and heavy involvement in sports, so this seemed like a relevant observation. Most sports I'm aware of have more comprehensive sets of rules than geocaching, and yet none of them I'm aware of rival the US tax code... (I am not suggesting that geocaching should have more complex rules.)

 

I seem to have struck a nerve here - pardon me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying - but it seems to bother people when I say "the guidelines of geocaching are not entirely logical." I mean this as neither a complement nor as an insult - simply an observation that people who are looking for structure had best forget about that and accept things as they are. I am personally neither offended by the lack of order that I perceive, nor do I make any suggestion that anything different should be done by TPTB. If any part of that statement is offensive or annoying - then I'm quite sorry about that - it is not my intention to offend.

[+Chrysalides]

I never said we needed a comprehensive set of rules - your words, not mine.

I never said you said we needed a comprehensive set of rules either.

[+Dame Deco]

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

There are plenty of reasons to use parking lots. Someone might be on a streak of trying for a cache a day and be a super busy person--they need a quick one. Someone might be having a busy or hard time this week, and finding a cache--even a LPG--releases some tension. Someone might be trying for a cache per county, and they don't have time to go for a hike. Someone might be from out of town and have no way to go find something better. Someone could be recuperating from an illness or they might not be very mobile, and the LPGs get them out of the house.

 

Those all seem to be within the guidelines to me. That said, individual reviewers are 1) human beings, and 2) volunteers. That means that there will be variations within the system.

 

Bottom line is, geocaching should be a fun, relaxing hobby. The best way to make it fun and relaxing is to ignore caches you don't like, hunt for ones you do, and place caches that will please you when folks find them. That's it really--it's not any more complicated than that.