Jump to content

Political Caches


Recommended Posts

Recently, I had a cache published at a public children's' hospital here in BC, Canada. Our medical system is different from that in the US and our hospitals are public, not unlike parks etc. I was asked to change the name of the cache to remove mention of the hospital and a line that read something like "find the cache and say thanks to the health professionals that work nearby". I changed them. Apparently paying tribute to the hospital or medical professionals is considered an agenda and in violation of the cache placement guidelines:

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

No problem, I thought. Makes sense.

 

This cache was recently published: http://coord.info/GC3K86Z It is called "Tribute to Joe Trasolini". The cache owner is a high school student. The cache is a tribute to a controversial politician who is by no means universally liked. I was very confused how my cache with one line regarding health professionals was disallowed and yet this cache which is completely political is allowed.

 

Groundspeak won't explain why one is ok and the other is not.

 

Perhaps there is someone here who can explain it to me? How is paying tribute to health professionals an agenda yet paying tribute to a current politician is not?

 

Thanks guys.

Link to comment

That one looks okay to me. It is okay to honor a person but not a cause. For instance you could do one honoring a fallen soldier as long as you didn't comment either way about the conflict he died in.

 

This one is a series is a series of statements which are generally okay.

 

I will agree that having to change yours was a pretty strict interpretation.

Link to comment

It there some relationship between the student and Joe Trasolini? Generally you can make a tribute cache for a friend of family member. A politician of course may be different and it is possible the reviewer was unaware of who Joe Trasolini is. This is one reason that local reviewers are prefered, but that is not always feasible.

 

There are certain words and phrase that reviewers look for to determine whether or not a cache page has an agenda. Your cache ran into this. By asking people to do an action (in your case to say thanks to the health professionals that work nearby) you ran into one of the red flags that they look for. The Joe Tasolini cache mostly avoids this. It provides some facts about Joe Trasolini's career without stating an opinion on his policies till way down at the bottom. Even where the cache owner has stated that he worked on Joe's campaign for MLA, that was mostly describing the cache owner's experience with politics, rather than asking you to support Joe Trasolini. Only where he congratulates Joe and the volunteers on a great job might this be seen as an agenda. But since he's not soliciting votes or even support for his favorite politician, it is not as clear cut as your, albeit less controversial, agenda.

 

Edit: I do see that the reviewer is from British Columbia, Canada. But looks like from Vancouver Island rather than Port Moody or the Vancouver suburbs. And of course the cache page makes it clear that Joe Trasolini is a politician. So only the reviewer could answer why this cache was published.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

The general rule our reviewer uses is that you can honor an individual without it being an agenda. But when you extend that to a group of people it becomes one. Or when you use imperative verbs telling others what to think/feel/do at the site.

 

I think the second part of this is what got yours flagged, not the first part.

Link to comment

The general rule our reviewer uses is that you can honor an individual without it being an agenda. But when you extend that to a group of people it becomes one. Or when you use imperative verbs telling others what to think/feel/do at the site.

 

I think the second part of this is what got yours flagged, not the first part.

 

Totally ridiculous, in my opinion. But it would definitely be consistent with the two examples the OP posted, and the reason for the rejection on one, and approval on the other. Whether that is the real reason or not (or just a convenient excuse that works), or if it's universally applied by all volunteer reviewers everywhere (which I'm sure it's not) is a different story. :ph34r:

 

EDIT: P.S. Since when do reviewers involve themselves in reading the body of a cache description? That would mean blatant admissions of using "soft coordinates", and worthless hints on the cache page would be a thing of the past, right? Oops, there's that little Ninja guy again. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Cuddlefish.. I don't get your comments...hospitals are public, not unlike parks etc. Do hospitals in Canada have bears and homeless people in them :unsure:<_<

Actually in some big cities the homeless DO like to fake illness to get out of the cold. And since We don't have to pay like the Americans do, It's an easy way for them. And I do remember a story about a moose or bear, some big animal anyway walking into a BC hospital through automatic doors....

 

I do believe a general thanks to EMS/FIRE/Police/Military etc is NOT political, and disagree with the decision. Now if it was a bring our troops home, or the doctors researching on cancer then I could see how it could be not allowed.

Link to comment

.

 

I think the key point here is this - "Groundspeak won't explain why one is ok and the other is not."

 

Tells you everything you need to know about how Groundspeak respects the people without whom they would have no business. It is hardly an isolated case.

 

Arbitrary decisions, often that make no sense. When the paying customer who has invested time, energy and money in placing a cache has a question, zero discussion and dialogue with the Mighty Oz.

 

New caches are few and far between in my area. New quality caches are non-existant. Hmmm, wonder why?

 

.

Link to comment

I don't think it is a conspiracy, I think the reviewers simply get overwhelmed with work and.

 

I recently saw a "Published" log and then the listing was later retracted. I could tell from the cache title that it was promoting a specific company. I later found out through our local forums that the entire cache page was very commercial in nature and it was revoked when some of the FTF hounds brought it to the reviewer's attention.

 

Lots of new submissions, lots of issues with existing caches, lots of questions about future placements. When you count on humans mistakes will eventually happen.

 

I personally believe the "agenda" guideline is applied too strictly sometimes, but I think Groundspeak has to or it would immediately get out of hand.

Link to comment

I don't think it is a conspiracy, I think the reviewers simply get overwhelmed with work and.

 

I recently saw a "Published" log and then the listing was later retracted. I could tell from the cache title that it was promoting a specific company. I later found out through our local forums that the entire cache page was very commercial in nature and it was revoked when some of the FTF hounds brought it to the reviewer's attention.

 

Lots of new submissions, lots of issues with existing caches, lots of questions about future placements. When you count on humans mistakes will eventually happen.

 

I personally believe the "agenda" guideline is applied too strictly sometimes, but I think Groundspeak has to or it would immediately get out of hand.

 

Gee, I hope I didn't wind Emmett up with my post from over the weekend. Just trying to be funny. :P I do agree the guideline appears to be too strictly applied sometimes, and even to the point of completely ridicilous the time someone in Canada complained, and pointed out many caches that slipped through.

 

Also very surpised at the lack of activity in this thread.

Link to comment

Are you saying that this is an illegal cache container? I keep running into it while searching for mega bison containers at various sites.

 

Fixed the link for you. Now it works and folks can see the "Obama cache container".

 

B.

 

That is really strange. Who would make that? Who would buy it? I mean if you just consider the President of the U.S. a famous person, has anyone ever made a "famous Person" cache container? :blink:

Link to comment

Are you saying that this is an illegal cache container? I keep running into it while searching for mega bison containers at various sites.

 

If the corrected link others have posted are for the President Obama, then no, it is not "illegal" unless it, the political affliation or an agenda are mentioned in the description. Just like TB's, tracts, business cards, coupons, gift certificates, etc. in a cache are not prohibited.

Link to comment

Drat! Archived? :mad:

 

I understand the rules, but is GS just irked because you made generic mention of not being able mention some generic health care professionals? Perhaps if you had just said "We love you Bob, Susan and Mary..." it might have cleared. They can't control what other people say in their logs. How many times have we logged a LPC and said "Good thing the WalMartians didn't see us"?

 

FWIW, thanks Cuddlefish for trying to place a cache that celebrates a wonderful, valuable place. My son spent two months on 3G when he was five years old. Some of the docs need to learn a little bedside manner (Schrieber you old goat) but the nursing staff are amazing. :D

 

Darn you "no such thing as precedent" rule!

Link to comment

I had similar trouble with the 150 feet from railway tracks rule. I was told the fact that there was quite a bit of vertical separation and other obstacles that made it quite clear that you could not approach across the tracks did not matter because the location was still within 150'. Two or three weeks later three caches show up on a parking structure directly above a busy roadway and less than 150' feet from the railway tracks. More recently a fourth cache has appeared on the same structure that is less than 30 feet horizontally from the tracks and still over a busy roadway.

 

I have no problem at all with caches on this structure and feel that cachers need to read descriptions and be responsible for their own actions, but if hunters at my location were going to park in a busy street with nowhere to pull over, climb a small slope, cross the tracks, climb another slope, and then scale a 15 foot concrete wall to get to the cache, why aren't those same cachers going to end up down below the parkade in the roadway, where you can drive to and park, or on the tracks?

Link to comment

Are you saying that this is an illegal cache container? I keep running into it while searching for mega bison containers at various sites.

 

Fixed the link for you. Now it works and folks can see the "Obama cache container".

 

B.

 

That is really strange. Who would make that? Who would buy it? I mean if you just consider the President of the U.S. a famous person, has anyone ever made a "famous Person" cache container? :blink:

 

I wouldn't call that a cache container. It looks like one of those brass pill holders - no seal of any kind. No better than an altoids tin and the hinge would probably break even faster.

 

However, if cache containers must conform to the no-agenda listing guidelines, then I would like to report agendas about rats, toilets, cookie jars, telephones...

 

:lol:

Link to comment

I had similar trouble with the 150 feet from railway tracks rule. I was told the fact that there was quite a bit of vertical separation and other obstacles that made it quite clear that you could not approach across the tracks did not matter because the location was still within 150'. Two or three weeks later three caches show up on a parking structure directly above a busy roadway and less than 150' feet from the railway tracks. More recently a fourth cache has appeared on the same structure that is less than 30 feet horizontally from the tracks and still over a busy roadway.

There is no guideline forbidding caches from being placed within 150 feet of a railroad. The guideline forbids placing caches on railroad property, which normally extends 150 feet on either side of the tracks in the United States. It's unlikely that a public roadway is located on the railroad's right-of-way. (Not all U.S. railroad rights-of-way extend 150 feet).

Link to comment

Cuddlefish with the way your cache page currently reads I think it would be acceptable. I think removing the entire last paragraph would be perfectly fine. Maybe the reviewer will be able to unarchive the cache now that you have made that change, so contact them.

 

In the other cache you referenced I see no agenda. It gives facts on Joe and the CO's connection to Joe. The only line that I see in a gray area is "Great job to Joe, and to the exellent volunteers as well!".

Link to comment

I had similar trouble with the 150 feet from railway tracks rule. I was told the fact that there was quite a bit of vertical separation and other obstacles that made it quite clear that you could not approach across the tracks did not matter because the location was still within 150'. Two or three weeks later three caches show up on a parking structure directly above a busy roadway and less than 150' feet from the railway tracks. More recently a fourth cache has appeared on the same structure that is less than 30 feet horizontally from the tracks and still over a busy roadway.

 

I have no problem at all with caches on this structure and feel that cachers need to read descriptions and be responsible for their own actions, but if hunters at my location were going to park in a busy street with nowhere to pull over, climb a small slope, cross the tracks, climb another slope, and then scale a 15 foot concrete wall to get to the cache, why aren't those same cachers going to end up down below the parkade in the roadway, where you can drive to and park, or on the tracks?

Canadian Rockies beat me to the punch. I wanted to add some more info. The 150 ft guideline is not there for safety. In the early days of Geocaching a rail company came down hard on a cacher who hid a cache on the rail right of way. The cacher apparently had some huge fines to pay. Groundspeak did not want this to be an issue and thus the 150 ft guideline was created. IF you can prove that the area is public or that you have permission you can place a cache within 150 ft. If you did supply that proof and the reviewer did not agree you can always try appeals.

Link to comment

Cuddlefish with the way your cache page currently reads I think it would be acceptable. I think removing the entire last paragraph would be perfectly fine. Maybe the reviewer will be able to unarchive the cache now that you have made that change, so contact them.

I think the opportunity for this has long since passed.

 

1. Owner submits agenda-less cache, which is published.

2. Cache changed by owner post-publication to add material contrary to the solicitation guideline.

3. Reviewer asks owner nicely, and privately, to remove the added material, with a complete explanation of why that request was proper under the guidelines.

4. Owner removes agenda material temporarily, starts this forum thread, and complains to Groundspeak.

5. Owner restores agenda material, now present on the cache page.

6. A Groundspeak Lackey archives and locks the listing.

 

I put the odds of getting the reviewer to overrule Groundspeak's archive log at about the same as the odds that BrianSnat will spend his next vacation doing the ET Highway Power Trail.

Link to comment

Cuddlefish with the way your cache page currently reads I think it would be acceptable. I think removing the entire last paragraph would be perfectly fine. Maybe the reviewer will be able to unarchive the cache now that you have made that change, so contact them.

I think the opportunity for this has long since passed.

 

1. Owner submits agenda-less cache, which is published.

2. Cache changed by owner post-publication to add material contrary to the solicitation guideline.

3. Reviewer asks owner nicely, and privately, to remove the added material, with a complete explanation of why that request was proper under the guidelines.

4. Owner removes agenda material temporarily, starts this forum thread, and complains to Groundspeak.

5. Owner restores agenda material, now present on the cache page.

6. A Groundspeak Lackey archives and locks the listing.

 

I put the odds of getting the reviewer to overrule Groundspeak's archive log at about the same as the odds that BrianSnat will spend his next vacation doing the ET Highway Power Trail.

 

Keystone is probably one of my favorite people on these forums....

Link to comment

I had similar trouble with the 150 feet from railway tracks rule. I was told the fact that there was quite a bit of vertical separation and other obstacles that made it quite clear that you could not approach across the tracks did not matter because the location was still within 150'. Two or three weeks later three caches show up on a parking structure directly above a busy roadway and less than 150' feet from the railway tracks. More recently a fourth cache has appeared on the same structure that is less than 30 feet horizontally from the tracks and still over a busy roadway.

There is no guideline forbidding caches from being placed within 150 feet of a railroad. The guideline forbids placing caches on railroad property, which normally extends 150 feet on either side of the tracks in the United States. It's unlikely that a public roadway is located on the railroad's right-of-way. (Not all U.S. railroad rights-of-way extend 150 feet).

 

Actual guideline or not, I was told 150' and that no amount of vertical separation matters to that. No mention of my side walk location being on railway property, just 150' and no amount of vertical separation matters to that.

 

ETA.....

 

>Canadian Rockies beat me to the punch. I wanted to add some more info. The 150 ft guideline is not there for safety. In the early days of Geocaching a rail company came down hard on a cacher who hid a cache on the rail right of way. The cacher apparently had some huge fines to pay. Groundspeak did not want this to be an issue and thus the 150 ft guideline was created. IF you can prove that the area is public or that you have permission you can place a cache within 150 ft. If you did supply that proof and the reviewer did not agree you can always try appeals.<

 

The safety is not my point, only that I was only told 150' no vertical separation mattered. I guess the rest is my fault for not being more familiar with the guidelines and proving that the side walk on the city street was not on railroad property.

Edited by Mr Kaswa
Link to comment

Thank you for your reply Keystone. I don't mind my cache being archived. I had warning it would be done. I wanted an explanation why the political one is NOT an agenda. So far no one was been able to explain it. Can you explain why this political cache is not an agenda?

Edited by Cuddlefish
Link to comment

Cuddlefish with the way your cache page currently reads I think it would be acceptable. I think removing the entire last paragraph would be perfectly fine. Maybe the reviewer will be able to unarchive the cache now that you have made that change, so contact them.

 

In the other cache you referenced I see no agenda. It gives facts on Joe and the CO's connection to Joe. The only line that I see in a gray area is "Great job to Joe, and to the exellent volunteers as well!".

 

Oh I don't want mine reinstated. The reviewer and appeals told me they had to archive it, so there was nothing I could do there. I am just trying to get my head around what seems to be a double standard to me. So far this forum thread has helped me understand some of it, but I am still quite confused.

Link to comment

Thank you for your reply Keystone. I don't mind my cache being archived. I had warning it would be done. I wanted an explanation why the political one is NOT an agenda. So far no one was been able to explain it. Can you explain why this political cache is not an agenda?

 

As was stated above, the reviewers in question are the only ones who can really answer the question. I'd guess it had/has something to do with the actual phrasing involved. With the exception of the last line of the cache description about Joe, there's nothing political there at all, it's all history and information. The last line has a little bit of an agenda in there, but not much of one. It also doesn't ask anyone to do anything.

 

There's not much more answer you can get here unless you're looking for opinions. Opinions probably won't be much in your favor given that you came in here on a small rant without giving the whole story.

Link to comment

Thank you for your reply Keystone. I don't mind my cache being archived. I had warning it would be done. I wanted an explanation why the political one is NOT an agenda. So far no one was been able to explain it. Can you explain why this political cache is not an agenda?

 

As was stated above, the reviewers in question are the only ones who can really answer the question. I'd guess it had/has something to do with the actual phrasing involved. With the exception of the last line of the cache description about Joe, there's nothing political there at all, it's all history and information. The last line has a little bit of an agenda in there, but not much of one. It also doesn't ask anyone to do anything.

 

There's not much more answer you can get here unless you're looking for opinions. Opinions probably won't be much in your favor given that you came in here on a small rant without giving the whole story.

 

I'm sorry perhaps I was unclear. I was looking for explanations. You, as well the previous posters have been very helpful. Thank you for taking the time to look over the cache. :)

Link to comment

I had similar trouble with the 150 feet from railway tracks rule. I was told the fact that there was quite a bit of vertical separation and other obstacles that made it quite clear that you could not approach across the tracks did not matter because the location was still within 150'. Two or three weeks later three caches show up on a parking structure directly above a busy roadway and less than 150' feet from the railway tracks. More recently a fourth cache has appeared on the same structure that is less than 30 feet horizontally from the tracks and still over a busy roadway.

There is no guideline forbidding caches from being placed within 150 feet of a railroad. The guideline forbids placing caches on railroad property, which normally extends 150 feet on either side of the tracks in the United States. It's unlikely that a public roadway is located on the railroad's right-of-way. (Not all U.S. railroad rights-of-way extend 150 feet).

Actual guideline or not, I was told 150' and that no amount of vertical separation matters to that. No mention of my side walk location being on railway property, just 150' and no amount of vertical separation matters to that.

Vertical separation doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not your cache was placed on railroad property without permission. If it was, then the reviewer was correct in not publishing it.

 

It's unfortunate that the reviewer might not have explained that 150' is the likely edge of the railroad right-of-way. On the other hand, you did check the box indicating you had read and understood the guidelines.

Link to comment

Thank you for your reply Keystone. I don't mind my cache being archived. I had warning it would be done. I wanted an explanation why the political one is NOT an agenda. So far no one was been able to explain it. Can you explain why this political cache is not an agenda?

 

As was stated above, the reviewers in question are the only ones who can really answer the question. I'd guess it had/has something to do with the actual phrasing involved. With the exception of the last line of the cache description about Joe, there's nothing political there at all, it's all history and information. The last line has a little bit of an agenda in there, but not much of one. It also doesn't ask anyone to do anything.

 

There's not much more answer you can get here unless you're looking for opinions. Opinions probably won't be much in your favor given that you came in here on a small rant without giving the whole story.

 

When I saw the mention of a cache that was about a politician, my first reaction was "how is that NOT political?" and therefore an agenda. But, you're right...you can't get a more polarizing political figure right now than Barack Obama and there are caches placed as "tributes" to him. I looked through a few of the listings and none had anything beyond a bio of Obama and some history. Obviously, a cache that urged you to vote for Obama would not be published.

Link to comment

The no solicitation guideline is one of the most difficult to grasp. People post caches that promote something that, to them, is not an agenda. They simply put words that express a feeling that seems pretty non-controversial. It's hard do see why anyone would object to "Say thank you to the health care professionals" or "Say thank you to a teacher".

 

Then they see another cache that, to them, seems to clearly have an agenda. A tribute to a local politician must be soliciting support for that politician, if not for votes, then perhaps in support of his policies.

 

So what is the difference exactly?

 

While only a Groundspeak lackey or perhaps a senior reviewer like Keystone can answer this, I have my ideas based on what has come up in the past.

 

In judging whether something is an agenda the reviewer are careful to avoid subjective judgements that can be effected by whether they agree with the cache page's perspective or not. So instead they look for objective criteria.

 

The objective criteria for solicitation is often more difficult to define than the criteria for a commercial cache. In part, Groundspeak realizes that people may want to put caches at hospitals, libraries, museums, and other locations that while business, may be non-profit and certainly are not places where you'd be expected to buy something (other than perhaps admission). They also understand that people want to hide tribute caches in honor of a friend or a cache that commemorates something important in their life. There is also the recognition that someone might create a cache themed around a local sports team or a favorite band. The commercial and agenda rules are specifically worded to allow for these.

 

One of the objective things the reviewer look for to decided if something is an agenda, is whether the cache page asks the finder to do something. This does just mean "donate money" or "vote for so-and-so". It's enough to ask someone to "Think about this". Certainly the ever popular "Thank a health care professional" or "Thank a teacher" are seen as asking the cache finder to do something. It doesn't matter that it is innocuous or uncontroversial.

 

On the other hand, you can present facts that are related to the theme of the caches. You can describe how your team won the Stanley Cup :P (which might be seen as an agenda in Canada :unsure:) or give some facts about the number of records your favorite band has sold (just don't say "buy this record" or even "listen to this record").

 

It's clear that the OP could have had her cache published if she simply left out one sentence, or replaced it by some facts such as how the doctors and nurses work long shifts. Perhaps because the "asking someone to do something" rule isn't spelled out, it may not have been clear to her that this was the problem.

 

On the other hand the tribute cache seemed to stick to giving facts about the politician's career and about the cache owner's experience working on a campaign. While it is clear that cache owner supports the politician, we are not told "support Joe Trasolini" or "vote for Joe Trasolini" or even "say thank you to Joe Trasolini".

 

The OP could have been just as clear of her position on the Canadian health care system without the cache page becoming an "agenda", simply by avoiding an innocuous phrase.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

Vertical separation doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not your cache was placed on railroad property without permission. If it was, then the reviewer was correct in not publishing it.

 

It's unfortunate that the reviewer might not have explained that 150' is the likely edge of the railroad right-of-way. On the other hand, you did check the box indicating you had read and understood the guidelines.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, it is rather unlikely that the city street property is on the railway's ROW....and it is not. Admittedly the two properties touch, that however is not proof of being on the railways property. Now if the placer of the second groups of caches either got or was told to get permission then yes that makes things completely different.

 

Edited to fix the quote thing.

Edited by Mr Kaswa
Link to comment

The no solicitation guideline is one of the most difficult to grasp. People post caches that promote something that, to them, is not an agenda. They simply put words that express a feeling that seems pretty non-controversial. It's hard do see why anyone would object to "Say thank you to the health care professionals" or "Say thank you to a teacher".

 

Then they see another cache that, to them, seems to clearly have an agenda. A tribute to a local politician must be soliciting support for that politician, if not for votes, then perhaps in support of his policies.

 

So what is the difference exactly?

 

While only a Groundspeak lackey or perhaps a senior reviewer like Keystone can answer this, I have my ideas based on what has come up in the past.

 

In judging whether something is an agenda the reviewer are careful to avoid subjective judgements that can be effected by whether they agree with the cache page's perspective or not. So instead they look for objective criteria.

 

The objective criteria for solicitation is often more difficult to define than the criteria for a commercial cache. In part, Groundspeak realizes that people may want to put caches at hospitals, libraries, museums, and other locations that while business, may be non-profit and certainly are not places where you'd be expected to buy something (other than perhaps admission). They also understand that people want to hide tribute caches in honor of a friend or a cache that commemorates something important in their life. There is also the recognition that someone might create a cache themed around a local sports team or a favorite band. The commercial and agenda rules are specifically worded to allow for these.

 

One of the objective things the reviewer look for to decided if something is an agenda, is whether the cache page asks the finder to do something. This does just mean "donate money" or "vote for so-and-so". It's enough to ask someone to "Think about this". Certainly the ever popular "Thank a health care professional" or "Thank a teacher" are seen as asking the cache finder to do something. It doesn't matter that it is innocuous or uncontroversial.

 

On the other hand, you can present facts that are related to the theme of the caches. You can describe how your team won the Stanley Cup :P (which might be seen as an agenda in Canada :unsure:) or give some facts about the number of records your favorite band has sold (just don't say "buy this record" or even "listen to this record").

 

It's clear that the OP could have had her cache published if she simply left out one sentence, or replaced it by some facts such as how the doctors and nurses work long shifts. Perhaps because the "asking someone to do something" rule isn't spelled out, it may not have been clear to her that this was the problem.

 

On the other hand the tribute cache seemed to stick to giving facts about the politician's career and about the cache owner's experience working on a campaign. While it is clear that cache owner supports the politician, we are not told "support Joe Trasolini" or "vote for Joe Trasolini" or even "say thank you to Joe Trasolini".

 

The OP could have been just as clear of her position on the Canadian health care system without the cache page becoming an "agenda", simply by avoiding an innocuous phrase.

 

Thank you! Now that makes sense! I have another cache that is called "Thank you Metro Vancouver Parks" http://coord.info/GC3887N that no one ever asked me to change. It is interesting that the title "Thank you Children's Hospital" was not allowed on its own, irrespective of the cache page contents but the former one is fine. It must have been one imperative statement sullied the title of the cache also.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...