Park n' Grabs

[+the4dirtydogs]

 

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.

Sorry that I like the Power Trails, and P&Gs and stuff like that!! I WISH I WAS MORE LIKE YOU, since you obviously are a better geocacher than I am!!!

Must be. Geocacher of the year 4 times.

 

Actually 6 times, and Geocacher of the Decade too. The field isn't large enough to accept all of that

WOW! NOW i'm impressed.

[Mr.Yuck]

Thanks to BrianSnat for closing the thread in the getting started forum, and posting a link to this one. It didn't belong there anyways. But I have now given up on trying to explain the difference between a handicap accessable park-n-grab micro in a garbage-filled alley behind the strip plaza, and a handicapped accessable park-n-grab micro in a nice public park. You'd think this would be obvious, but no one listens to me.

 

Oh, and I did finally put on some reading glasses and read FlyFishGirl's opus. I have nothing to add though.

[knowschad]

Oh my, that's gonna win an award for longest post on this forum *ever.*

 

I choose to use as little information as possible. Afterall, if you have the coordinates, you know where the cache is hidden. I choose not to click on the View Larger Map, to read the hints, to see other logs until after I have found and logged the cache.

 

The OP chooses not to look up the cache on a map ahead of time (or read other information about the cache) and then complains afterwards about it not being up to their standards?

 

I tried to ignore it the first time or two I saw you saying that the post was complaining about quality, but I'm just not seeing that. Perhaps I need to go back and re-read every word, but as it is, I agree with her that all she is doing is questioning what she sees as inconsistencies. Those seeming or real inconsistencies are often confusing.

 

There was a time, not all that long ago, when power trails as we now know them were unheard of, and anything that looked like that to the reviewer was flatly denied. Now we have sanctioned power trails in almost every state.

 

Recently, we began to hear about "event stacking" as something that was being denied. And then, a few days ago, we learn of this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3HNHC

[+GeoBain]

There was a time, not all that long ago, when power trails as we now know them were unheard of, and anything that looked like that to the reviewer was flatly denied. Now we have sanctioned power trails in almost every state.

 

Recently, we began to hear about "event stacking" as something that was being denied. And then, a few days ago, we learn of this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3HNHC

 

That's why the only people that can tell us what groundspeek wants is groundspeek. We usually find out about these changes when someone posts in the forums. It's not generally due to a change in the guidelines, but a change in the way groundspeek instructs their reviewers to interpret and enforce the guidelines.

[knowschad]

Thank you. I'm going to save a link to this so the next time someone complains my posts are TL;DR I have something to point to.

 

Noted.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Recently, we began to hear about "event stacking" as something that was being denied. And then, a few days ago, we learn of this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3HNHC

 

Ha..."Dirtbag Geocaching"...wonder if all the coords are soft?

[+The_Incredibles_]

Thanks to BrianSnat for closing the thread in the getting started forum, and posting a link to this one. It didn't belong there anyways. But I have now given up on trying to explain the difference between a handicap accessable park-n-grab micro in a garbage-filled alley behind the strip plaza, and a handicapped accessable park-n-grab micro in a nice public park. You'd think this would be obvious, but no one listens to me.

 

 

I"m listening. I tried make the same point. That a Park and Grab can be at a great location. i.e. Park & Grab just means you don't have to walk far to get it. It doesn't necessarily mean the cache or location is crappy.

Edited May 23, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I tried to ignore it the first time or two I saw you saying that the post was complaining about quality, but I'm just not seeing that. Perhaps I need to go back and re-read every word, but as it is, I agree with her that all she is doing is questioning what she sees as inconsistencies. Those seeming or real inconsistencies are often confusing.

 

You are quite right. There are certainly inconsistencies in this game. There is a healthy amount of competition in this game, but it is almost completely unsanctioned, unsupported, and generally frowned on here in the forums. I've never thought this was an especially healthy development, and I am generally not very interested in competition in this game. Indeed, several years ago, this is one of the things that frustrated me about this site to the point where I stopped playing for quite a long time. When I started again, I told myself that I was simply NOT going to allow myself to worry about this. It's just how it is, and apparently it works, at least for now.

 

My main complaint about the competitive elements to this game is that unbridled competition rarely engenders good behavior, and so it's better to have some rules to channel it into a direction that let's those who want that sort of thing compete meaningfully, and keeps those who aren't interested from having to deal with their antics much. However, this is simply not going to happen. (And in all fairness - turns out it's generally non-trivial to do this well.)

[+tozainamboku]

I tried to ignore it the first time or two I saw you saying that the post was complaining about quality, but I'm just not seeing that. Perhaps I need to go back and re-read every word, but as it is, I agree with her that all she is doing is questioning what she sees as inconsistencies. Those seeming or real inconsistencies are often confusing.

Maybe. But her profile says she doesn't like park 'n grabs and thinks they violate the whole purpose of Geocaching. Of course she is as entitled as anyone else to have an opinion on what the purpose of Geocaching is, and maybe she agrees with what her reviewer told her and what briansnat says in the quote that appears in placement guidelines summary. But what is confusing her is her belief that the purpose of the guidelines is to promote that particular vision of geocaching.

 

Several people, including some reviewers, stated that this is not the purpose of the guideline. However short of an official Groundspeak statement, I don't think we're going to change her mind.

 

I don't think the fact the guidelines have changed overtime or that there is still some room for reviewers (or Groundspeak) to allow exceptions is the issue. The basic problem is that if you believe the guidelines are there to encourage your particular definition of quality and the "purpose of Geocaching", you're going to find that they don't.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Maybe. But her profile says she doesn't like park 'n grabs and thinks they violate the whole purpose of Geocaching.

I think specifically her beef is that a +1 smiley from a 1/1 png shouldn't compare to a +1 smiley from 3/4 hiking cache, because the efforts between the two aren't even remotely comparable.

 

As a metric for anything other than "how many caches have you found" the smiley is terrible. I think she has trouble understanding how the "score" for a game could be like that, and how the rules could allow for such lopsided comparisons.

 

The basic problem is the assumption that this is that type of game, and of course it isn't. Of course the way many people play it, whether sensible or not, it *is* that type of game.

 

The basic problem is that if you believe the guidelines are there to encourage your particular definition of quality and the "purpose of Geocaching", you're going to find that they don't.

Yep.

[+bushmanfamily]

P&Gs can be very challenging. Often times they're in crowded areas so you have to get in and out quickly. I like the challenge they bring. And yes, they have taken us to parts of town we've never been to before. I've discovered lots of new places because of them. I can't even count the number of times I've said, Wow, I didn't know this was here. My kids and I have also ran across some pretty cool bugs and rocks on or near that fence post or light box. Anything that gets us to stop and look around at our surroundings is a good thing in our busy lives. P&Gs can be educational too. We've seen them at memorials (statues, plaques etc), historical markers, historical buildingg and pieces of art.

 

During the week on the drive home from work and school the kids and I will sometimes hit a P&G or two. It gives us a little bit of excitement during the week and some new stories to tell. We like to guess what we'll find, where we'll find it and how we'll have to extract it, sign it and get it back. Sometimes we look at the pics ahead of time and plan our "mission" and our escape. On weekends we do the more challenging and interesting caches. But no matter which kind we're doing I try to make it educational. Whether it's working on their critical thinking and problem solving, learning about our environment or just spending time talking and interacting with each other, caching is always fun, interesting and educational.

[+flyfshrgrl]

I have been misunderstood regarding IkeHurley13's comments. I apologize for allowing room for misinterpretation.

 

I was not criticizing IkeHurley13 nor his comments. The information that Geocaching.com allows geocaches placed at a school, where IkeHurley13 has first-hand knowledge and can cite specific examples of Geocaching.com's contradiction, is what horrifies me, and I explained why in regards to the potential character of person that could be drawn to a school that has a geocache at its location.

 

Having seen someone who entered a school, who was not a tax payer living in that school district, who had no children or other relatives enrolled in or teaching in that school district, who had a police record for sexual assualt (of whom and what age I do not know), and who had to be arrested to be removed from the school building was very scary. When we reviewed the tape, a student, out of courtesy, held the door open so the person could enter the building. The student was leaving the back of the main building to go to his class in the Ag Barn; the man could not have entered the school had the student not held the door open. The man was standing outside one of the girls' restrooms fondling himself when the principal approached him. Grade ages are 9th-12th. It was very scary.

 

Geocaching.com can not control the character of the people who go to hunt a cache. Geocaching.com can control where caches are placed. They should "draw their line in the sand," so to speak, and adhere to what they say: Fundamental Placement Guidelines, 6. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military installations.

Again, my apologies to IkeHurley13 for the misunderstanding.

[etarace]

Thanks to BrianSnat for closing the thread in the getting started forum, and posting a link to this one. It didn't belong there anyways. But I have now given up on trying to explain the difference between a handicap accessable park-n-grab micro in a garbage-filled alley behind the strip plaza, and a handicapped accessable park-n-grab micro in a nice public park. You'd think this would be obvious, but no one listens to me.

 

Oh, and I did finally put on some reading glasses and read FlyFishGirl's opus. I have nothing to add though.

I thank briansnat for closing mine so that it did not devolve into ... this.

I had placed mine (which you must admit was somewhat different) in "getting started" since I am getting started, I suppose. We had some lovely and interesting exchanges there. And there is a world of difference between a magnetic micro on a WalMart dumpster and a nice micro in a pretty (and easy to get to) spot in a park (which are what some of my park-and-grab finds are).

 

Anyway... I have now read this thread. And I pretty much want to poke my eyes out with empty chapstick tubes.

[+Lady Loki]

And what exactly does that have to do with geocaching? Someone who wants to prey on children at a school has many other avenues of gaining access to the school than hunting geocaches, especially since the caches are unlikely to be /inside/ the school building.

 

It seems to me like you're conflating two things that have no relation.

[4wheelin_fool]

The kids are not placed at risk with a geocache nearby, rather the game pieces are. Cachers trying to avoid muggles near a school may appear to be doing something they aren't.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Bottom line:

 

1. They aren't going to ban park-n-grabs. Flyfshrgrl, you may not like them, and in that, you would not be alone. Many people do like them

2. They aren't likely to create guidelines that support competitive sub-games within geocaching. These types of games have existed since very early on - and there has been no support for them thus far, and little reason to believe it will ever happen.

 

I certainly hope you can find ways to enjoy the game, despite that.

[+Roman!]

I have been misunderstood regarding IkeHurley13's comments. I apologize for allowing room for misinterpretation.

 

I was not criticizing IkeHurley13 nor his comments. The information that Geocaching.com allows geocaches placed at a school, where IkeHurley13 has first-hand knowledge and can cite specific examples of Geocaching.com's contradiction, is what horrifies me, and I explained why in regards to the potential character of person that could be drawn to a school that has a geocache at its location.

 

Having seen someone who entered a school, who was not a tax payer living in that school district, who had no children or other relatives enrolled in or teaching in that school district, who had a police record for sexual assualt (of whom and what age I do not know), and who had to be arrested to be removed from the school building was very scary. When we reviewed the tape, a student, out of courtesy, held the door open so the person could enter the building. The student was leaving the back of the main building to go to his class in the Ag Barn; the man could not have entered the school had the student not held the door open. The man was standing outside one of the girls' restrooms fondling himself when the principal approached him. Grade ages are 9th-12th. It was very scary.

 

Geocaching.com can not control the character of the people who go to hunt a cache. Geocaching.com can control where caches are placed. They should "draw their line in the sand," so to speak, and adhere to what they say: Fundamental Placement Guidelines, 6. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military installations.

Again, my apologies to IkeHurley13 for the misunderstanding.

 

First of GC.com can not control where caches are place, only whether they list them. They are not in the business of keeping tabs on sexual predators, that's the police's job but honestly I think you need to find a new hobby, this one seems to be giving you way to much stress.

 

Try knitting, safe and relaxing and if a sexual predator comes by you can stab him with the knitting needle. A win,win,win.

[jholly]

Maybe. But her profile says she doesn't like park 'n grabs and thinks they violate the whole purpose of Geocaching.

I think specifically her beef is that a +1 smiley from a 1/1 png shouldn't compare to a +1 smiley from 3/4 hiking cache, because the efforts between the two aren't even remotely comparable.

 

As a metric for anything other than "how many caches have you found" the smiley is terrible. I think she has trouble understanding how the "score" for a game could be like that, and how the rules could allow for such lopsided comparisons.

 

The basic problem is the assumption that this is that type of game, and of course it isn't. Of course the way many people play it, whether sensible or not, it *is* that type of game.

 

The basic problem is that if you believe the guidelines are there to encourage your particular definition of quality and the "purpose of Geocaching", you're going to find that they don't.

Yep.

Unfortunately PnG covers a lot of ground. I'm the proud owner of two guardrail hides. I get frequent comments on the nice views. Yeah, not near as much work as my hides out on the tree farm but folks seem to like them. There have been other PnG's I've done that had some really nice views. They are not all film cans under a Wally World lamp post. Some can and are quality hides once you get past the thought that a quality hide has to be at the end of a five mile hike. There is a cacher around here that puts out what you could class a a PnG hide, but they are very innovative and fun to do. I certainly consider them a high quality hide. I put flyfishgrl's comments and distaste of PnG's by having a very limited exposure to geocaching and the many types of hides. Perhaps if she had several hundred more finds she would start to see there is quite a variety of hides and not all quality hides have to involve a long hike.

[+flyfshrgrl]

It is the inconsistencies that are very difficult. Being new meant that my feedback from playing the game came from A) actual cache finds, what a Reviewer said to me, and C) the information posted on Geocaching.com's website as to how to play. I knew certain caches I was finding were the exact opposite of what the Reviewer said and what Geocaching.com posted. I knew I wasn't finding the answer on my own, regardless the reading and re-readings and forum searches. Honestly, I didn't know what an OP was, do now, but I still don't know what an LPC is.

 

I admitted the mistake I made, all parking lot light skirt hides are Park 'n Grabs, but not all Park 'n Grabs are parking lot light skirt hides. However, until Saturday evening, 19 May, all the Park 'n Grabs I had found were the parking lot light skirt hides. I now understand that Park 'n Grabs can be done well.

 

I understand and have experience what it means to be competitive. I was trying to understand how important a competitive numbers bump, a placing a geocache for the sake of placing a geocache, is for Geocaching.com to approve a cache hide that directly contradicts what they say in their Placement Guidelines and the information a Reviewer said to me. I am not playing this game to be competitive; I have set some challenges for myself personally in playing this game, but I am not nor do I want to compete with someone else, even after experiencing a first-to-find, which is why the numbers bump from a competitive aspect is difficult to understand.

 

I do not understand why Geocaching.com would allow a placement at a school, when they say they won't allow it. Someone has direct, first-hand knowledge of this instance actually happening; it's not a "Well, I read it on the Internet, so it must be true" tale that has no factual back-up.

 

In failing to understand the game from my sources, I turned to the Forum for help. I had received help when I was confused about placing a TB in your own cache. I received the help from the forum.

 

Being lambasted for being new and not knowing did not clarify the confusion, but I did read, think about, and take in to consideration what every person had to say through Post #21, which is when I set out for the weekend. I honestly expected there to be one or two more posts after that and was really surprised at what I saw Monday, 21 May, evening.

 

In trying to play well, in trying to correct mistakes I make so I don't repeat them, in trying to improve my skills, I wanted to understand. I failed.

[cezanne]

I admitted the mistake I made, all parking lot light skirt hides are Park 'n Grabs, but not all Park 'n Grabs are parking lot light skirt hides. However, until Saturday evening, 19 May, all the Park 'n Grabs I had found were the parking lot light skirt hides.

 

All that had the PnG attribute or really all caches that can be regarded as PnG? One needs to take into account that the PnG attribute has introduced not long ago and most cachers I know do revise the attributes of their existing caches in such cases. The PnG is not that important anyway as often the text of the cache description gives it away what to expect. Your attitude of not taking account the cache description would lead you to serious troubles in my area.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 23, 2012 by cezanne

[+The_Incredibles_]

LPC = Lamp post cache

 

The one thing I can sympathize is that it can be very upsetting to receive criticism from a reviewer on a cache you've submitted. I think a lot of new cache owners will experience this. However, it does get easier with time and I"m sure when you have more experience with hiding caches, you'll understand the rational.

 

I'm still trying to understand what prompted the start of this thread. You placed a cache near a school and got it rejected??? I think we could be more help if we knew what the reviewer said or what was supposedly wrong with your cache. Sorry if you've already explained it already, I haven't read the whole thread.

Edited May 23, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+Ike 13]

flyfsggrl I think the inconsistencies come from you reading the guidelines like hard and fast rules (like you may be used to in softball). They are called guidelines for a reason. You can find contradictions of each and every one.

 

When Geocaching started there was nothing (not even this site to list them). People hid whatever, wherever, however they wanted. This site was created and then after a short period of time the founders decided they needed some rules to prevent negative run ins with land owners. The rules were not rigid but flexible and left up to each reviewer to enforce so they were called guidelines. Over time more guidelines were added and they are constantly changing and being added to. When a guideline is added (or amended) all old caches are grandfathered under the old guidelines. So this is why you may find caches (hidden back in 2001) that are closer than 528 feet.

 

I agree having the quote about quality is contradictory if you read it as a hard fast rule. But as I tried to convey in my first post (and failed) it's am encouragement not a requirement.

[knowschad]

I admitted the mistake I made, all parking lot light skirt hides are Park 'n Grabs, but not all Park 'n Grabs are parking lot light skirt hides. However, until Saturday evening, 19 May, all the Park 'n Grabs I had found were the parking lot light skirt hides. I now understand that Park 'n Grabs can be done well.

 

Even lamp skirt park & grabs can be creative. Check out this one, which currently has 31 favorite points, despite being stuck way up in Northern Minnesota.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

The fact that you can park close to a cache has very little if anything to do with the quality of the cache. I've found tons of clever micros, ammo cans, and all other sizes and configurations very close to where I parked. The first cache ever placed was a P & G.

Regarding cache quality, if you hiked a long way to get a cache it just means you hiked a long way to get a cache...nothing more.

[cezanne]

 

I agree having the quote about quality is contradictory if you read it as a hard fast rule. But as I tried to convey in my first post (and failed) it's am encouragement not a requirement.

 

Personally, I do think that in the case of briansnat's statement the issue is not the well known hard rule vs flexible guideline issue.

While for cachers like myself the container and the hideout itself can never be the reason to justify one of my caches, this does not hold for many newer cachers for whom a creative hide at a totally boring location is fine. briansnat's statement in the way I understand it is not in favor of creative hides at boring drive in locations (note this is meant as drive in and boring, not that every drive in is boring).

 

I still think that briansnat's statement is not positioned optimally at the beginning of the placement guidelines.

 

 

Cezanne

[+the4dirtydogs]

I have been misunderstood regarding IkeHurley13's comments. I apologize for allowing room for misinterpretation.

 

I was not criticizing IkeHurley13 nor his comments. The information that Geocaching.com allows geocaches placed at a school, where IkeHurley13 has first-hand knowledge and can cite specific examples of Geocaching.com's contradiction, is what horrifies me, and I explained why in regards to the potential character of person that could be drawn to a school that has a geocache at its location.

 

Having seen someone who entered a school, who was not a tax payer living in that school district, who had no children or other relatives enrolled in or teaching in that school district, who had a police record for sexual assualt (of whom and what age I do not know), and who had to be arrested to be removed from the school building was very scary. When we reviewed the tape, a student, out of courtesy, held the door open so the person could enter the building. The student was leaving the back of the main building to go to his class in the Ag Barn; the man could not have entered the school had the student not held the door open. The man was standing outside one of the girls' restrooms fondling himself when the principal approached him. Grade ages are 9th-12th. It was very scary.

 

Geocaching.com can not control the character of the people who go to hunt a cache. Geocaching.com can control where caches are placed. They should "draw their line in the sand," so to speak, and adhere to what they say: Fundamental Placement Guidelines, 6. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military installations.

Again, my apologies to IkeHurley13 for the misunderstanding.

 

First of GC.com can not control where caches are place, only whether they list them. They are not in the business of keeping tabs on sexual predators, that's the police's job but honestly I think you need to find a new hobby, this one seems to be giving you way to much stress.

 

Try knitting, safe and relaxing and if a sexual predator comes by you can stab him with the knitting needle. A win,win,win.

Thanks for the laugh.

[+Max and 99]

One of my most challenging traditional hides is a cache you can park within 2 feet of. It's technically a "park-and-grab", yet there is nothing easy about it. I love it when a cacher will log multiple DNFs, and later say "I found it, exactly where I looked before!" One cacher said they needed two hands to count the number of times they looked for it.

 

It's a very unique container, on a guardrail, and yes it's a park and grab. No scenic view, but it's a good park and grab in the sense that it's unique and challenging, one of the few P&Gs I own.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Honestly, I didn't know what an OP was, do now, but I still don't know what an LPC is.

 

LPC = Lamp post cache

 

I understand and have experience what it means to be competitive. I was trying to understand how important a competitive numbers bump, a placing a geocache for the sake of placing a geocache, is for Geocaching.com to approve a cache hide that directly contradicts what they say in their Placement Guidelines and the information a Reviewer said to me. I am not playing this game to be competitive; I have set some challenges for myself personally in playing this game, but I am not nor do I want to compete with someone else, even after experiencing a first-to-find, which is why the numbers bump from a competitive aspect is difficult to understand.

 

My apologies, I misunderstood your question. I'd assumed you were either concerned primarily with competition, or your background in competitive sports made you want more structure in this game than exists.

 

In trying to play well, in trying to correct mistakes I make so I don't repeat them, in trying to improve my skills, I wanted to understand. I failed.

 

It's difficult to communicate online like this. Your original post, and some of the follow ups, were not easy to parse, at least for me.

 

I think the best way to think about the guidelines is that they are a minimal set of rules that are intended:

 

1. Mostly keep geocaching.com out of trouble

 

2. Mostly keep cache hiders / seekers out of legal trouble

 

3. Prevent crazy stunts that could cause land managers to ban the game outright over large sections of the nation (for example - no buried caches.)

 

4. Allow a good deal of creativity for the hiders of geocaches

 

5. Local laws / land manager rules always take precedence over the rules of the site. For example, if a school wants a geocache, why should geocaching.com say "no, we don't think that's appropriate?" For example, there may be an outdoor learning area on the grounds of a school where a cache is entirely appropriate.

 

The guidelines have evolved as problems have arisen. This does not make for a consistent set of rules. There are a few cases (rail road right of ways come to mind) where the general response from the property owners is so universally aggressive and negative that geocaching.com does actually enforce the guidelines quite consistently, even in cases where the guidelines don't actually make much sense in a specific instance.

 

The reality of the situation is that the best thing you can do is to read the guidelines, contact your local reviewer with questions about your cache placement if you think there is even a chance there is an issue, and ask fairly specific questions on the forum.

 

I actually think it might be an improvement if the guidelines, and in particular the local regulations, local land manager contact info, etc. were gathered into a wiki that was divided state by state, region by region. (And nation by nation of course.)

[cezanne]

It's a very unique container, on a guardrail, and yes it's a park and grab. No scenic view, but it's a good park and grab in the sense that it's unique and challenging, one of the few P&Gs I own.

 

Well, that sounds like an example for the type of cache which is certainly appreciated by a group of cachers (not cachers like myself), but which certainly violates briansnat's rule in the way I understand it. The only reason to visit such a cache and even more than once is to find the cache and not be led to a location that deserves t o be visited in its own right and not to experience a nice hike or bike tour.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Once again I think the problems are cause because the guidelines are given without rationale Those of us who have been around long enough to see the guidelines evolve have some idea of the reasons the various guidelines exist. A newbie is likely take a guess at the reasons based on their own experiences or on some comment she heard from a reviewer or saw on the website.

 

If someone has personal experience of a pedophile hanging out near a school and performing lewd acts near school children, it is understandable why they may think the guideline against placing caches near schools is because of this.

 

Similarly, when the guidelines quote briansnat saying you need a reason to bring a person to a location beyond just finding a cache, that must be the rationale for at least some of the cache placement guidelines. And if that is the case how could Lamp post skirt hides found in a parking lot be allowed?

 

In fact the guidelines have never has so noble a purpose. The main reason for the guidelines has been to protect Groundspeak. The guidelines enable Groundspeak to quickly archive cache listings if a cache becomes a problem. They also reduce the number of caches that are likely to cause problems being placed or published.

 

The main problem has always been permission. Caches are placed by individuals assuming that they don't need to get explicit permission and it turns out a land manager or land owner isn't happy about that. Areas like schools are listed because experience has taught that permission is not likely to be given. These caches have become problems, primarily because a suspicious container found near a school must be taken seriously. Of course suspicious people hanging around schools searching for a cache are also taken seriously.

 

Caches in parking lots may in fact get placed without permission. But there are many case where the reviewers know that permission was given. These caches are not called out in the guidelines and reviewers are given some latitude as to whether they ask if permission was given or not. There are some national chains where Groundspeak has been informed that the caches are not allowed and reviewers will not knowingly publish caches there, even though these are not mentioned in the guidelines.

 

The saturation guideline is one where the rationale is not so obvious. It would seem that one aspect is to keep caches from being placed too close to one another, so there would not be any confusion over which cache you found. But how close is too close? The guideline was set at 528ft. It was clearly bigger than it had to be to prevent confusion between caches, but still small enough to allow several caches to be placed in along a trail or in a park. The guideline used to give it's purpose. It was to encourage cachers to find new areas for placing caches and to prevent too many caches in one area especially placed by one person. This rationale was used for a time to control so called power trails. But it seems that as caching has grown it was harder to make the claim that cachers were not seeking out new areas. On top of this, the sport began attracting people who preferred staying closer to home and others who enjoyed finding lots of caches at one time. The point is to still encourage people to explore new areas, but at the same time allow caches that meet the guideline even if it bothers certain individuals.

[+B+L]

Those of us who have been around long enough to see the guidelines evolve have some idea of the reasons the various guidelines exist. A newbie is likely take a guess at the reasons based on their own experiences or on some comment she heard from a reviewer or saw on the website.

Not to pick on you Mr. Namboku, but you have touched upon something bothersome that's ingrained into the forum culture here: a lot of time and energy is expended trying to divine the motives for someone's post, rather than just addressing the topic directly. Similarly, a lot of words get written trying to explain the rationale behind the various guidelines, but no one seems to spend much time on the actual meaning of those guidelines.

 

flyfshrgrl is not the first person to be disoriented by the inconsistencies in the guidelines, but three pages of questioning her motives and telling her what should or should not be doing is not really helping matters. I was not being facetious back in post #90 when i suggested adding a negating clause to each guideline. They really are easier to understand that way. Especially when you realize there's one guideline to rule them all: "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches."

[+Indy.Sparkles]

I cannot even begin to explain how thankful I am to these (usually) pointless caches. 90% of the PNGs I have found were in a very uninteresting if not boring or common area. I would much rather spend 2 hours hiking to a find than 2 hours finding 10 PNGs. I think most of them are "padding your numbers" or "a quick find for that multi day streak" (heck, quite a few in my area say that in their descriptions...) Sure, I like the easy find some days, because I decided the 400 day streak was mine to be had... but... in the end... I think they stink. To me geocaching means "geo" out in the nature, the ground, or the bush "cache" a box of cool stuff, hidden, treasure. So do I think a film canister under a light skirt is a true geocache? Nope. But I log them because there are so many in my area, that if I ignored them all I would not have this as a hobby but a few weekends a year. If I start hiding caches I will make sure mine are not less than a 2.5.

[+3doxies]

I've often thought that the Frog should preface the "Guidelines" with a statement such as this:

 

"This guidance represents the XXXXXXXXXXXXXs (XXXXX) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind XXXXXX or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the XXXXX staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate XXXXX staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance."

 

Kinda sums up the way the swamp works.

Edited June 4, 2012 by 3doxies