Jump to content

Illegal cache published with exception from GS


UUS

Recommended Posts

Hello to all,

 

I'm really angry about Groundspeak. They always archive caches which seems to have only a little appearance of commercial even it is only a link to a non commercial organization. But they are granting exceptions agains their own guidelines like a dictator.

 

In this case ("GC3F4AD - Näher als man denkt") they have granted an exception for the highly controversial Dortmund Airport which is highly controversial even in the Dortmund city council because of the noise pollution of about 100.000 citizens. A link to this cache and two TBs can be found on the webpage <http://www.dortmund-airport.de/geocache.html>. As I have asked GS for the reason for this exception they only answered "As per our guidelines, Groundspeak on occasions makes exceptions for cache page content that may be perceived by some members of the community as 'commercial'. This is our prerogative and in this case, we gave an exception to the owner of this cache". I think that a support for the Dortmund airport by Groundspeak is a intervention in the local politics.

 

Is there any possibility to get that cache archived?

 

--

 

Regards from Germany

Uwe.

Link to comment

I haven't quite understand the problem (language-problems, I'm danish), but I have a few times written to authorities, when I have discovered a cache way out of good behavior (fx respect to nature). First of course I have tried to explain the problems to the cacheowner, but if he/she cannot understand what's wrong with the cache, then I have got help from authorities to get the cache removed. In the beginning I wrote to Groundspeak, but they normally don't care about such problems! :-(

Link to comment

A few thoughts:

 

(1) The airport already exists. To the extent airport-related caches are allowed (and they are) taking sides one way or the other (allow a cache or don't allow a cache) is just as political.

 

(2) The presence of a cache (or lack of it) isn't going to affect your local politics about airport noise. If you have a problem with the airport, I think your energy is better channelled toward airport management, rather than Geocaching.com. I see that, here, they don't agree with your preferences, but I'd be just as bothered if GC decided to take sides about an airport and banned otherwise acceptable caches because it didn't like the airport.

 

(3) "Commercial" in the US, at least, generally means "private sector" commercial. Airports and such tend not to be thought of as "commercial" but rather as governmental.

Link to comment

Hello to all,

 

I'm really angry about Groundspeak. They always archive caches which seems to have only a little appearance of commercial even it is only a link to a non commercial organization. But they are granting exceptions agains their own guidelines like a dictator.

 

In this case ("GC3F4AD - Näher als man denkt") they have granted an exception for the highly controversial Dortmund Airport which is highly controversial even in the Dortmund city council because of the noise pollution of about 100.000 citizens. A link to this cache and two TBs can be found on the webpage <http://www.dortmund-airport.de/geocache.html>. As I have asked GS for the reason for this exception they only answered "As per our guidelines, Groundspeak on occasions makes exceptions for cache page content that may be perceived by some members of the community as 'commercial'. This is our prerogative and in this case, we gave an exception to the owner of this cache". I think that a support for the Dortmund airport by Groundspeak is a intervention in the local politics.

 

Is there any possibility to get that cache archived?

 

--

 

Regards from Germany

Uwe.

 

I fail to see how this cache is "commercial".

 

Yes, the airport website has reference to the cache but that is hardly something that is in Groundspeak's control.

Link to comment

 

Is there any possibility to get that cache archived?

 

First of all, as exceptions granted by Groundspeak are regarded. Groundspeak owns this site. They are not allowing commercial content within the normal framework not to protect cachers, but mainly for their own profit. That's also why they can make whatever exception they want. You need not like the outcome (I often don't either), but you have to accept it. That's the disadvantage of using a geocaching platform owned by a company.

 

Second, the cache looks like a normal airport cache and I do not think that it needed an exception at all as the cache itself is regarded. It might be a borderline case with respect to what links are allowed, but this appears to be at a level which can already decided by the volunteer reviewers.

 

Your idea about a cache with respect to an initiative fighting against the airport has no chance at all anyway as it carries along an agenda which the airport cache does not.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

if anyone choose to live near an airport, they must know there is noise

 

In this case our house stands here since nearly 30 years and at that time the airport was a grass runway for sport airplanes. Now the house could not be sold because of the noise.

 

--

 

Uwe.

Link to comment

First of all, as exceptions granted by Groundspeak are regarded. Groundspeak owns this site. They are not allowing commercial content within the normal framework not to protect cachers, but mainly for their own profit. That's also why they can make whatever exception they want. You need not like the outcome (I often don't either), but you have to accept it. That's the disadvantage of using a geocaching platform owned by a company.

 

I think about to leave Groundspeak because of their dictatorial behaviour.

 

Second, the cache looks like a normal airport cache and I do not think that it needed an exception at all as the cache itself is regarded. It might be a borderline case with respect to what links are allowed, but this appears to be at a level which can already decided by the volunteer reviewers.

 

Cezanne

 

In my opinion this cache was published because the airport webside promotes Groundspeak. And that is not correct I think. I am working on a cache to promote the airport opponents and I fear this has no chance to be published "because of the guidelines".

 

The reviewer told me that he has no possibility to do anything because the permission was granted directly from GS.

 

--

 

Uwe.

Edited by UUS
Link to comment

First of all, as exceptions granted by Groundspeak are regarded. Groundspeak owns this site. They are not allowing commercial content within the normal framework not to protect cachers, but mainly for their own profit. That's also why they can make whatever exception they want. You need not like the outcome (I often don't either), but you have to accept it. That's the disadvantage of using a geocaching platform owned by a company.

 

I think about to leave Groundspeak because of their dictatorial behaviour.

 

You can do so. You should not confuse however the concepts company and dictator. I have never been favourable of giving geocaching into the hands of a company, but it is more than natural that a company will act in their own interest and will not ask for votes from the community (ignoring for the moment that the vast majority of German geocachers would vote in favor of the airport cache).

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

by the way UUC, we see you handle English just perfect,

why not add a little English text on your own cache pages

and make English hints too, this way Turists may find them much more fun to find,

you can then add the Turist Friendly icon to your cache page.

you live in a nice area with alot of turists, so it is a nice thing to do.

by the way your hints decrypter dont work.

I LOVE the rainbow bridge, VERY beutiful at night.

Link to comment

I do not see any commercial character of this cachelisting and it seems that none of the other finders have.

 

Yes, there are some unusual situation. The owner ID seems to be created just for this purpose of placing the cache, the existence of the cache is advertised outsite of Groundspeak, several TBs got distributed with missions related to the airport itself.

 

Nevertheless, this cache has no obvious "agenda". The existance of the airport is surely already known by everyone in that area and therefore I see it similar to all those "Mc Donalds" caches.

 

If you would like to publish a cache protesting against the airport, you would have a personal agenda and therefore your cache would not get published.

 

You would need to present your protest against the airport in a "neutral" form. Maybe a mystery which requires geocacher to learn about the history of the airport would make some people think about the effect to the environment but do not include "suggestive questions" like "How many people are affected in their sleep by the airport?"

Link to comment

by the way UUC, we see you handle English just perfect,

 

Thanks, I do my very best using my school english.

 

why not add a little English text on your own cache pages

and make English hints too, this way Turists may find them much more fun to find,

you can then add the Turist Friendly icon to your cache page.

you live in a nice area with alot of turists, so it is a nice thing to do.

by the way your hints decrypter dont work.

 

I will think about it. BTW, a hint in "[]" will never be decrypted on the side. You have to copy it to <www.rot13.de> or similar. There it works. ;-))

 

by the way UUC, we see you handle English just perfect,

 

I LOVE the rainbow bridge, VERY beutiful at night.

 

Yes, I thought this bridge deserves a cache to show it a lot of people which have never found it without a cache.

 

--

 

Uwe.

Link to comment

I do not see any commercial character of this cachelisting and it seems that none of the other finders have.

Unfortunately the cache description is not commercial but the webpage Geocaching - Dortmund Airport uses a link to the cache and some TBs for a competition where you can win something. Here the airport uses Geocaching for commecial use. Thats in my opinion a violation of the guidelines. But I think Groundspeak is happy with this promotion. Obviously no one at Groundspeak speak german and understand the content of the page.

 

Yes, there are some unusual situation. The owner ID seems to be created just for this purpose of placing the cache, the existence of the cache is advertised outsite of Groundspeak, several TBs got distributed with missions related to the airport itself.

Exactly that is the point I don't like.

 

Nevertheless, this cache has no obvious "agenda". The existance of the airport is surely already known by everyone in that area and therefore I see it similar to all those "Mc Donalds" caches.

 

If you would like to publish a cache protesting against the airport, you would have a personal agenda and therefore your cache would not get published.

 

You would need to present your protest against the airport in a "neutral" form. Maybe a mystery which requires geocacher to learn about the history of the airport would make some people think about the effect to the environment but do not include "suggestive questions" like "How many people are affected in their sleep by the airport?"

I'm working on a cache with documented facts about the noice and other problems of the airport. But I fear if I insert the link to the webpage of the airport opponents this will not be published because of "commercial use".

 

--

 

Uwe.

Edited by UUS
Link to comment

Hello to all,

 

I'm really angry about Groundspeak. They always archive caches which seems to have only a little appearance of commercial even it is only a link to a non commercial organization. But they are granting exceptions agains their own guidelines like a dictator.

 

In this case ("GC3F4AD - Näher als man denkt") they have granted an exception for the highly controversial Dortmund Airport which is highly controversial even in the Dortmund city council because of the noise pollution of about 100.000 citizens. A link to this cache and two TBs can be found on the webpage <http://www.dortmund-airport.de/geocache.html>. As I have asked GS for the reason for this exception they only answered "As per our guidelines, Groundspeak on occasions makes exceptions for cache page content that may be perceived by some members of the community as 'commercial'. This is our prerogative and in this case, we gave an exception to the owner of this cache". I think that a support for the Dortmund airport by Groundspeak is a intervention in the local politics.

 

Is there any possibility to get that cache archived?

 

--

 

Regards from Germany

Uwe.

 

I fail to see how this cache is "commercial".

 

Yes, the airport website has reference to the cache but that is hardly something that is in Groundspeak's control.

 

What determines whether a cache is commercial, to me, is how the cache listing is written up. A cache located outside a business, isn't commercial unless the cache page listing includes content which can be perceived to be promoting the business. In this case, there was only one sentence in the description about the number of locations the airport serves that I'd consider to be a commercial promotion. The rest was mostly historical information.

 

An aiport itself, is definitely commercial. My local, small airport advertises on the radio, tv, and in local papers. It competes for passengers that might choose from three other larger airports within a 1 hour drive, another about 2 hours away, and NYC is about a 4.5 hour bus ride away. I've flown out of all of them and when searching for airfares always check what's available from at least four of the airports, and if I'm flying internationally, check the airports in NYC as well (which I have chosen on a couple of locations).

 

I'm not sure what can be done about this particular cache other than to express your displeasure.

Link to comment

Well, to give my 5 cents regarding this topic:

 

The cache which we are discussing about definitly has commercial content, because it uses a

"Related Webpage"-Link to the homepage of the airport.

 

Any cache relating to for example a restaurant via a "Related Webpage"-Link would not be published.

 

But furthermore the same user has 4 Travelbugs running around Germany (Here are 3 of the TB-Codes:

TB4JJR1

TB4JZO4

TB4KNVQ)

Each of the Travelbugs not only is part of a commercial game where you can win a flight from Dortmund Airport to one of the goals mentioned in the TB-Listing, but also again is connected via a weblink in the TB-Listing to the Homepage of Dortmund Airport. The TB-Listing states the following:

Keronimo is the official mascot of the Dortmund Airport.

 

The Keronimo Travel Bug has the goal to visit the following destinations of the summer flight plan of Dortmund Airport:

Egypt

Hurghada

Bulgaria

Sofia, Burgas

Germany

Heringsdorf/Usedom, Munich

Greece

Thessaloniki

Kosovo

Pristina

Croatia

Split, Zagreb

Lithuania

Wilna (Vilnius)

Poland

Wroclawv, Gdansk, Katowice, Lodz, Poznan

Romania

Bukarest-Otopeni, Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara (Temeswar), Targu Mures

Serbia

Belgrad

Spain

Alicante, Almeria, Barcelona, Bilbao, Fuerteventura, Ibiza, Jerez de la Frontera, Las Palmas/Gran Canaria, Madrid, Mahon/Menorca, Malaga, Palma de Majorca, Santiago de Compostela, Seville, Valencia

 

...

 

An airport ist a commercial corporation: so why allowing a corporation using the Geocaching-Platform for marketing purposes ? As the cache itself only is of relevance for local cachers and the airport is highly discussed because of noise pollution etc. in the local area, Groundspeak and Geocaching will surely not gain positive image by this cache. Either Groundspeak is not aware of this fact or the airport paid for being allowed to use the Geocaching-Platform for marketing and therfore does not care about possible image-damage.

From my point of view Groundspeak shold rather raise Premium-Member fees instead of "prostituting" themselves gaining money for commercial use of any business related company, because people will surely get annoyed by "marketing-caches" very fast!

Link to comment

 

Is there any possibility to get that cache archived?

 

First of all, as exceptions granted by Groundspeak are regarded. Groundspeak owns this site. They are not allowing commercial content within the normal framework not to protect cachers, but mainly for their own profit. That's also why they can make whatever exception they want. You need not like the outcome (I often don't either), but you have to accept it. That's the disadvantage of using a geocaching platform owned by a company.

 

 

We'll have to make Cezanne an honorary North American, because from what I've seen, "they can make whatever exceptions they want" doesn't appear to go over too well in Europe, in general. :P One need only look at the Europe only Timberland commercial promotion from last year, that practically broke the Uwervoice feedback system, when it was in place. :o

 

EDIT: I was going to ask Cezanne if they would be interested in tranlating the web page, but Babelfish actually workded pretty good for this one (which is rare).

 

The official Geocache at the Dortmund Airport

 

This traditional cache is located close to the 'gate 26"in the northwestern part of Dortmund Airport site. To find this cache, it is not necessary to enter the area of Dortmund Airport.

 

We wish you much fun with the treasure hunt

 

Dortmund Airport

 

The Flughafen Dortmund GmbH in the Dortmund-Brackel district was founded already in 1926. Dortmund at that time quickly established in the domestic air transport in addition to Cologne - even more flights in Dortmund were dispatched as in Düsseldorf and Essen. Due to the war, the civil aviation started again until in 1960 to the present site in Dortmund-Wickede. in 1974, a 650 M long and 20 M wide Asphaltbahn replaced the previously existing grass track.

 

Continuously more Ausbauungen were held until today: Terminal and halls were built and the runway and gradually extended. The original Dortmund-Wickede airport has evolved to the third largest airport in North Rhine-Westphalia: Dortmund Airport. Today, flown over 50 destinations across Europe from Dortmund and approximately 2 million passengers handled in the year.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

and my 20 cents too:

 

this airport is the mostly discussed "object" in our area.

By now the airport has become larger and larger in the last decades. but on the other hand profit stays out, depts getting more and more.

 

the airport needs more revenue and needs more passengers to travel. i think the marketing agency tries to make this airport more public with the help of geocaching. isn´t this advertisement?

 

i believe the answer must be. Yes, of course.

 

Placing Travelbugs around and make a competition where you can win a flight is advertising for the airport and is commercial. Refer to the cachelisting maybe not, but on the other side refer to the airport in the cachelisting (related website; the owner account, which was created just for this cache).

 

So i see a commercial background to this situation.

 

okay, nevertheless, Groundspeak has the last word for publishing cache listings. but i can´t understand that gc supports the airport, which is highly controversically discussed in public.

 

just one word about the residents near the airport: if you sitting in the backyard of your own house, and a plane is flying above you in near distance, you can´t understand any spoken word - and this happens not only one time a day. Okay, the problem exists maybe in quite much areas. Our airport, as UUS mentioned, was a small airport in the 1970s and grows more and more. the residents own their house since this times - values of the houses dropped in relation of the airport expansion. thats the main points which are discussed politically.

 

so, at all with the background of this poliltical discussion i think its a failure to support this airport by a company like gc.

 

and, as i mentioned before, gc (indirectly) supports this airport.

 

thanks for reading

 

Casy

Link to comment

Everyone's aware that Travel Bugs and Coins are not subject to the No Agenda/Commercialization guidelines...right?

 

Well, yes. But I'll bet they had to get special permission for these. I doubt Joe Schmuck small business owner from Illinois could put out travel bugs that you can win prizes for handling. I could be wrong though, I've actually sort of lost interest in TB's, and looking at the forum for them over the years. :)

Link to comment

 

EDIT: I was going to ask Cezanne if they would be interested in tranlating the web page, but Babelfish actually workded pretty good for this one (which is rare).

 

Google translate used to be really horrible at translating German to English but I noticed a couple of weeks ago when translating a cache page that it actually produced a coherent translation. I don't know if they've changed anything but it's a good sign.

 

As I see it, this issue boils down to whether or not Groundspeak should consider political or controversial issues when deciding to make an exception for a commercial related cache. The OP has argued that by making an allowance to have the cache published at the airport that it has entered the political issue in favor of the airport. One could argue that if they had not allowed the cache they'd still be entering the political issue but on the side of those not in favor of the airport.

 

As long as GS takes a consistent stance on what they will allow and what they will not that's about all anyone can ask for.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

Groundspeak has the last word for publishing cache listings.

 

^^This is it, right here.^^

 

I'd be willing to bet that a cache needing 'special dispensation' gets published nearly every day.

 

Also, I doubt that Groundspeak was aware of the local issue with the airport when they made their decision.

It's possible (but not probable) that they may reverse that decision if enough complaints are made.

Those who are concerned about this should channel their complaints to contact@Groundspeak.com.

Link to comment

You are trying to portray this as Groundspeak explicitly endorsing the Airport and every decision they have made that affected you. As though Groundspeak did something directly to you.

 

I think all they did was just approved a cache that happens to have a casual commercial connection - however , they do that from time to time. Even here.

Link to comment

The official Geocache at the Dortmund Airport

 

This traditional cache is located close to the 'gate 26"in the northwestern part of Dortmund Airport site. To find this cache, it is not necessary to enter the area of Dortmund Airport.

 

We wish you much fun with the treasure hunt

 

Dortmund Airport

 

The Flughafen Dortmund GmbH in the Dortmund-Brackel district was founded already in 1926. Dortmund at that time quickly established in the domestic air transport in addition to Cologne - even more flights in Dortmund were dispatched as in Düsseldorf and Essen. Due to the war, the civil aviation started again until in 1960 to the present site in Dortmund-Wickede. in 1974, a 650 M long and 20 M wide Asphaltbahn replaced the previously existing grass track.

 

Continuously more Ausbauungen were held until today: Terminal and halls were built and the runway and gradually extended. The original Dortmund-Wickede airport has evolved to the third largest airport in North Rhine-Westphalia: Dortmund Airport. Today, flown over 50 destinations across Europe from Dortmund and approximately 2 million passengers handled in the year.

I do not see any commercialization here, looks like a typical cache page to me. As mentioned before, the Airport or other Third Party can do whatever they want to advertise geocaching (see: Garmin, DeLorme, Magellan, Lowrance).

Link to comment

 

Also, I doubt that Groundspeak was aware of the local issue with the airport when they made their decision.

It's possible (but not probable) that they may reverse that decision if enough complaints are made.

 

Most probably they have not been aware of the issues around Dortmund airport (even I have not been), but on the other hand there are similar issues with about every larger airport in the German speaking area including Munich, Frankfurt/Main, Vienna, Zurich etc.

 

I do not think that they will change their decision (and I also do not think that they should), not even if enough complaints are made. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak would receive a larger number of protests if the cache got archived.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Google translate used to be really horrible at translating German to English but I noticed a couple of weeks ago when translating a cache page that it actually produced a coherent translation. I don't know if they've changed anything but it's a good sign.

 

It depends on the context and the complexity of the text. The given text is pretty simple and thus the translation routine does not work that bad.

It is true, however, that the automatic translators improved over time, in particular between major languages.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I do not see any commercialization here, looks like a typical cache page to me.

 

Regarding the listing-text, I think you´re right - but please do not forget the "Related Webpage"-link which also appears as part of the listing!

And the "Related Webpage"-link directly refers to the official airport webpage.

Link to comment

i think the marketing agency tries to make this airport more public with the help of geocaching. isn´t this advertisement?

 

I do not think so. My guess is rather the cache has been placed by someone working at the airport and having heard about geocaching who thought that it might be cool to have a cache there. Personally, I believe that a cache at an airport of which the airport is aware (not too common in German speaking countries) is better than a secret cache at an airport.

 

Do you really believe that anyone will travel to Dortmund airport who has not known about the airport before just because a cache can be found there? There are thousands of cache around.

 

I guess the cache can also be logged without becoming a passenger. I'm pretty much sure that no one will change his flight plans and fly via Dortmund just to get this cache.

Sooner or later a cache would have popped up there anyway regardless of the local issue.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

if anyone choose to live near an airport, they must know there is noise

 

In this case our house stands here since nearly 30 years and at that time the airport was a grass runway for sport airplanes. Now the house could not be sold because of the noise.

 

--

 

Uwe.

 

That is a good argument. In Los Angeles, Van Nuys Airport is the busiest general aviation airport in the country. People bought houses in the area decades ago thinking that they were fully aware of what they were getting into. The airport could accommodate twin prop Cessna type planes. Advancing technology has made it possible to land and launch Lear Jets there, and that is what they now do, all day long. It's not what these people signed up for.

Link to comment

I do not see any commercial character of this cachelisting and it seems that none of the other finders have.

Unfortunately the cache description is not commercial but the webpage Geocaching - Dortmund Airport uses a link to the cache and some TBs for a competition where you can win something. Here the airport uses Geocaching for commecial use. Thats in my opinion a violation of the guidelines. But I think Groundspeak is happy with this promotion. Obviously no one at Groundspeak speak german and understand the content of the page.

 

Yes, there are some unusual situation. The owner ID seems to be created just for this purpose of placing the cache, the existence of the cache is advertised outsite of Groundspeak, several TBs got distributed with missions related to the airport itself.

Exactly that is the point I don't like.

 

Nevertheless, this cache has no obvious "agenda". The existance of the airport is surely already known by everyone in that area and therefore I see it similar to all those "Mc Donalds" caches.

 

If you would like to publish a cache protesting against the airport, you would have a personal agenda and therefore your cache would not get published.

 

You would need to present your protest against the airport in a "neutral" form. Maybe a mystery which requires geocacher to learn about the history of the airport would make some people think about the effect to the environment but do not include "suggestive questions" like "How many people are affected in their sleep by the airport?"

I'm working on a cache with documented facts about the noice and other problems of the airport. But I fear if I insert the link to the webpage of the airport opponents this will not be published because of "commercial use".

 

--

 

Uwe.

Sounds like you need to take that up with the Airport...and not with Groundspeak...

 

Contests are held very often here in the US where caches are listed on Geocaching.com for people to find specific caches and get rewards...

Link to comment

Everyone's aware that Travel Bugs and Coins are not subject to the No Agenda/Commercialization guidelines...right?

 

Well, yes. But I'll bet they had to get special permission for these. I doubt Joe Schmuck small business owner from Illinois could put out travel bugs that you can win prizes for handling. I could be wrong though, I've actually sort of lost interest in TB's, and looking at the forum for them over the years. :)

 

You think not? :huh:

 

:unsure:

 

Mrs(Joe Schmuck)B

Link to comment

I'm glad the guidelines aren't rigid. Language is full of ambiguities and ten people can read a sentence and interpret it ten different ways. Strict guidelines would end up much longer and have to adopt a specialized vernacular to reduce ambiguity.

 

Rigid systems are actually no more fair than flexible ones. Administrators of both types will make mistakes, and sometimes they have agendas. Often they are accused of having an agenda merely because they made a controversial decision.

 

Since this is a hobby and not a legal code for a complex society, I'm glad it's flexible and a little vague. Reviewers have the power to allow or deny caches depending on how the cache conforms to the spirit of the guidelines. I'd hate to have to learn a ton of jargon just to understand several hundred pages of legalistic rules just to place a cache.

Edited by JJnTJ
Link to comment

 

EDIT: I was going to ask Cezanne if they would be interested in tranlating the web page, but Babelfish actually workded pretty good for this one (which is rare).

 

The official Geocache at the Dortmund Airport

 

This traditional cache is located close to the 'gate 26"in the northwestern part of Dortmund Airport site. To find this cache, it is not necessary to enter the area of Dortmund Airport.

 

We wish you much fun with the treasure hunt

 

Dortmund Airport

 

The Flughafen Dortmund GmbH in the Dortmund-Brackel district was founded already in 1926. Dortmund at that time quickly established in the domestic air transport in addition to Cologne - even more flights in Dortmund were dispatched as in Düsseldorf and Essen. Due to the war, the civil aviation started again until in 1960 to the present site in Dortmund-Wickede. in 1974, a 650 M long and 20 M wide Asphaltbahn replaced the previously existing grass track.

 

Continuously more Ausbauungen were held until today: Terminal and halls were built and the runway and gradually extended. The original Dortmund-Wickede airport has evolved to the third largest airport in North Rhine-Westphalia: Dortmund Airport. Today, flown over 50 destinations across Europe from Dortmund and approximately 2 million passengers handled in the year.

 

Just right click "translate with Bing" is what I do. I don't see any agenda on the page at all, but the new hide appears to be missing already. <_<

Link to comment

 

Just right click "translate with Bing" is what I do. I don't see any agenda on the page at all, but the new hide appears to be missing already. <_<

 

I actually did use BING. I thought they used Babelfish, but it was only a banner welcoming me as a "Babelfish user", because I wasn't logged into BING. I imagine that's a marketing ploy. Yepper, I use BING as a Windowsphone user, and to earn my kid microsoft points. That would be off-topic, wouldn't it? K bye.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Here is the short answer to this question...

 

It is their web site and GS can change the look anytime they want.

 

GS makes the rules for their web site and can add or change them anytime they want.

 

They list caches on their web site. They can choose to list or not list ANY cache they want.

 

Their site, their rules, their choice.

 

There are a few things that I don't like that GS does and I have a choice to either stay or leave. Since I choose to stay, means I have to except the things I don't like. You also have that same choice to either stay or leave. If you choose to stay and if you feel that any cache is a bad idea then write to GS (not a reviewer) and explain why you think it should be removed. But if they choose to leave it, then once again you have the choice to either leave or stay and except their answer.

 

Tobias

Link to comment

 

Just right click "translate with Bing" is what I do. I don't see any agenda on the page at all, but the new hide appears to be missing already. <_<

 

The cache is not new - it has been hidden back in April and back then even the OP did not object. Probably the contest started later or cachers became aware of it later.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I do not see any commercial character of this cachelisting and it seems that none of the other finders have.

Unfortunately the cache description is not commercial but the webpage Geocaching - Dortmund Airport uses a link to the cache and some TBs for a competition where you can win something. Here the airport uses Geocaching for commecial use. Thats in my opinion a violation of the guidelines. But I think Groundspeak is happy with this promotion. Obviously no one at Groundspeak speak german and understand the content of the page.

 

Yes, there are some unusual situation. The owner ID seems to be created just for this purpose of placing the cache, the existence of the cache is advertised outsite of Groundspeak, several TBs got distributed with missions related to the airport itself.

Exactly that is the point I don't like.

 

Nevertheless, this cache has no obvious "agenda". The existance of the airport is surely already known by everyone in that area and therefore I see it similar to all those "Mc Donalds" caches.

 

If you would like to publish a cache protesting against the airport, you would have a personal agenda and therefore your cache would not get published.

 

You would need to present your protest against the airport in a "neutral" form. Maybe a mystery which requires geocacher to learn about the history of the airport would make some people think about the effect to the environment but do not include "suggestive questions" like "How many people are affected in their sleep by the airport?"

I'm working on a cache with documented facts about the noice and other problems of the airport. But I fear if I insert the link to the webpage of the airport opponents this will not be published because of "commercial use".

 

--

 

Uwe.

Sounds like you need to take that up with the Airport...and not with Groundspeak...

 

Contests are held very often here in the US where caches are listed on Geocaching.com for people to find specific caches and get rewards...

Here's a recent thread of caches being linked to third parties who are using geocaching to advertise themselves and give out rewards for finding caches in their areas. I have known another similar entity that created an account simply to hide caches at their parks, and offered other rewards for finding some/all of those caches.

Link to comment

Their site, their rules, their choice.

But not their game. Except it is. In a game where exceptions are the only rule, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too. Or perhaps more appropriately for this thread: wasch mich, aber mach mich nicht naß.

Link to comment

Groundspeak doesn't allow commercial caches unless they get consideration (money).

 

The A.P.E. caches were commercial caches, they promoted the Planet of the Apes movie. The production company paid Groundspeak for this privilege.

 

The Splinterheads caches were commercial caches, they promoted the Splinterheads movie. The production company paid Groundspeak for this privilege.

 

Here, I suspect that Flughafen Dortmund GmbH paid Groundspeak for the privilege of having a cache. So, no, I highly doubt that this cache will be archived as a commercial cache.

 

I am no expert in German nuisance law, but in the US, if a home is devalued because of an unforeseen expansion of a loud or noxious business, you can sue to recover the lost property value. Perhaps your dispute is better heard in court than on the geocaching forum.

 

Meanwhile, thanks for letting me know about another airport cache, I'm always looking for new additions to my airport layover bookmark list.

Link to comment

 

The Splinterheads caches were commercial caches, they promoted the Splinterheads movie. The production company paid Groundspeak for this privilege.

 

 

Whoa. I don't know about that one. According to Box Office Mojo.com Splinterheads Grossed $16,392, and played in 4 theatres. I'll bet Groundspeak did it out of the goodness of their hearts, in that case.

 

Meanwhile, thanks for letting me know about another airport cache, I'm always looking for new additions to my airport layover bookmark list.

 

Weisenheimer. Hey, is that really a word? :ph34r:

Link to comment

I am no expert in German nuisance law, but in the US, if a home is devalued because of an unforeseen expansion of a loud or noxious business, you can sue to recover the lost property value. Perhaps your dispute is better heard in court than on the geocaching forum.

Here in Germany this doesn't work. If a home is devalued it is your problem except the airport builds directly beside your home. And in this case you get only soundproof windows if you have a liitle luck.

 

--

 

Uwe.

Edited by UUS
Link to comment

 

Here, I suspect that Flughafen Dortmund GmbH paid Groundspeak for the privilege of having a cache.

 

I do not think that money has been involved in that case as the cache description is completely harmless and does not promote anything. The cache is located outside of the airport and reachable for everyone.

The only issue might be the link to the web page of the airport which anyhow could easily be removed as not many cachers will click at this site as it is not mentioned in the cache text.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The cache is near the aiport, published by the airport, and promoted on the airport's website. But the cache isn't commercial because the cache PAGE doesn't promote the airport.

 

I have to wonder if the airport needed special permission from Groundspeak because the location violates normal guidelines by being a physical cache on airport property. The airport ban is security risk and private property issue, not commercial. Since the airport is the ones placing the cache it avoids those issues.

 

Here in the US there are several geotrails officially placed at the city, county, and state level by parks systems and tourist departments. Have any of those required special permission? I'd argue those are far more commercial in intent than one cache at an airport. Geocachers will make special trips to complete a cache series in a state they might not otherwise visit at all whereas the number of geocachers choosing which airport to fly in/out of Germany for a single mundane cache is probably minuscule (and it's not like the airpot was otherwise going unnoticed).

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

and my 20 cents too:

 

this airport is the mostly discussed "object" in our area.

By now the airport has become larger and larger in the last decades. but on the other hand profit stays out, depts getting more and more.

 

the airport needs more revenue and needs more passengers to travel. i think the marketing agency tries to make this airport more public with the help of geocaching. isn´t this advertisement?

 

i believe the answer must be. Yes, of course.

 

Placing Travelbugs around and make a competition where you can win a flight is advertising for the airport and is commercial. Refer to the cachelisting maybe not, but on the other side refer to the airport in the cachelisting (related website; the owner account, which was created just for this cache).

 

So i see a commercial background to this situation.

 

okay, nevertheless, Groundspeak has the last word for publishing cache listings. but i can´t understand that gc supports the airport, which is highly controversically discussed in public.

 

just one word about the residents near the airport: if you sitting in the backyard of your own house, and a plane is flying above you in near distance, you can´t understand any spoken word - and this happens not only one time a day. Okay, the problem exists maybe in quite much areas. Our airport, as UUS mentioned, was a small airport in the 1970s and grows more and more. the residents own their house since this times - values of the houses dropped in relation of the airport expansion. thats the main points which are discussed politically.

 

so, at all with the background of this poliltical discussion i think its a failure to support this airport by a company like gc.

 

and, as i mentioned before, gc (indirectly) supports this airport.

 

thanks for reading

 

Casy

 

Debating if this is a commercial cache or not really doesn't matter as Groundspeak can and has made exceptions for such things. Most recently comes to mind is the underwater hotel in the Florida Keys where you have to rent a room at the motel and possibly take SCUBA lessons from the proprietor in order to visit it.

 

What this issue should be about is if Groundspeak knows that they may have inadvertently injected themselves into the middle of a local political issue, and if so, do they care? While they have made exceptions in the past regarding commercialism, I believe that they have been very careful not to take up agendas.

 

If I had a stake in this, I would write a well worded message, (as above), to Groundspeak. It is entirely possible that they are not aware of the controversy surrounding the airport.

Link to comment

If I had a stake in this, I would write a well worded message, (as above), to Groundspeak. It is entirely possible that they are not aware of the controversy surrounding the airport.

 

They would then need to archive a whole lot of airport caches as similar controversies exist at every second airport in the German speaking area.

 

It also speaks for itself that the OP did not raise his concern back when the cache got published and when he found the cache.

 

I somehow got the feeling it is more about the raffle and the two travellers promoted at the webpage of the airport, but travellers are not subject to the "no agenda" rule anyway.

 

What really makes me wonder, however, is how the OP thinks that the airport could profit from the cache or the travellers at all. A small unknown shop or a business one has to enter to grab a cache, might certainly profit, but the cache is predominantly found by locals who certainly know the airport and will not increase the profit of the airport in any way.

 

Airports are extended because more and more people travel by plane and more and more people want to have the next airport as close as possible. For example, if I arrived late in Frankfurt, I'd be happy if I could continue immediately to my destination and have to wait for the next day due to some ban for night flights. Of course, the local people there prefer to be not disturbed. That's a difficult dilemma.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Most recently comes to mind is the underwater hotel in the Florida Keys where you have to rent a room at the motel and possibly take SCUBA lessons from the proprietor in order to visit it.

 

Off topic for the thread, but the cache in the U.S. Florida Keys requires that you pay a fee to use their private dive site; you don't have to rent a room or take a class. It's just the usual fee to dive a private site. Published with permission.

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...