Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JPreto

No caches allowed in places with entrance fees?

Recommended Posts

I saw recently some allusions in this forum that you can´t place a cache in some location where, to get to it, you must pay a fee.

 

This is a bit strange for me, I actually can´t see any guideline that specifically says this.

 

For instance, giving some examples:

 

- geocache inside an amusement park, with park administration permit, is not allowed?

- geocache inside a botanic garden, with garden administration permit, is not allowed?

- geocache in a tolled freeway rest stop, with freeway administration permit, is not allowed?

- geocache in a camping park with entrance fee, with camping administration permit, is not allowed?

 

Very very strange. If it is correct many, but many caches are being incorrectly approved, at least in Brazil...

 

Please inform!

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com.

 

Before a geocache is published on the website, a volunteer reviewer will look at the page for compliance with these guidelines. The physical geocache site is not verified. As the geocache owner, you retain all responsibility for your geocache listings and you are responsible for the placement and care of your geocache.

 

Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

Nearest I can find on a quick search.

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

 

Some fees are allowable. (eg. Car Parking)

Non-profit establishments seem to be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com.

 

Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

<snipped>

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

 

Nearest I can find on a quick search.

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

 

A couple of years ago I got off a cruise ship at an Alaskan port. Sunday morning, nothing open, no one around. The cache in this small town was inside a sidewalk newspaper stand. I had to pay $1.50 (because it had the Sunday paper in it -- all of a dozen pages maybe) to get the cache. As I was signing it, I let the lid slip. Another $1.50 to get back in and replace the cache.

 

Must be a gold mine for the local newspaper guy/cache owner!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I found a couple of caches inside pay newspaper boxes years back. Now, if I found one inside a box I had to pay to open I'd log a Needs Archived, per the commercial guideline prohibition on, "purchase a product". The cache owner might not have put it inside, stuff migrates. Cache owner can move it outside, and all's well again.

 

To the original poster, as others have said, if the fee goes to a government agency, say a government managed toll road, or government run park, it's almost certainly going to allowed. Some gray zones on not-for-profit areas with fees - if you want to hide a cache in area within a non-profit area fee, the reviewer or GeocachingHQ may allow this.

 

In reviewer mode, I've asked cachers to take caches to appeals where they were inside not for profit fee areas - some non-profit museums and gardens in this area have rather high entry fees. I've seen appeals decisions on this go both ways.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

 

Some fees are allowable. (eg. Car Parking)

Non-profit establishments seem to be allowed.

 

This is a good point of view!!!!

 

If you have to buy a ticket from a guy at the ticket office, thus interacting with a employer, the cache should not be publish then, but if you buy the ticket online and the entrance is fully automatic, thus no contact with employers there is no problem?

 

Why car parking is allowed then? It´s a profitable enterprise that manages the parking and you have to interact with the employers, dubious definition then...

 

It this is true, many caches in Brazil should have never been published... some of them are mine, inside a National Park that a entrance fee is required... Strange!

Share this post


Link to post

To the original poster, as others have said, if the fee goes to a government agency, say a government managed toll road, or government run park, it's almost certainly going to allowed. Some gray zones on not-for-profit areas with fees - if you want to hide a cache in area within a non-profit area fee, the reviewer or GeocachingHQ may allow this.

 

In reviewer mode, I've asked cachers to take caches to appeals where they were inside not for profit fee areas - some non-profit museums and gardens in this area have rather high entry fees. I've seen appeals decisions on this go both ways.

 

So, the difference of approval or not approval should be regarding if it is a profitable or non-profitable organization that is responsible for charging the fee?

 

Tolls here in Brazil are managed by profitable non-governmental organizations (private ones actually), so all caches that require you to pay tolls or are placed in those freeways should never be published?

 

What about caches is amusement parks with administration permit? They shouldn´t be allowed?

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few caches on a Wildlife Management Area (WMA). The State of Mississippi requires a $15 yearly license (just like a hunting or fishing license) to access any WMA. The fees go to the MDWFP (MS Dept of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Parks). I mention this on the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

What about the Empire Strikes back cache? http://coord.info/GC4D7F

I live in NYC and I'll never get this because it costs $29 to go up there. It's a landmark, but it is also a for profit tourist attraction

 

I thought it was unfair that we have to pay to achieve this when I first read the listing, but after reading this thread, I'm wondering why it's even allowed.

 

This from a NY Times article in2011:

Ordinarily secret, the Empire State Building’s finances are buried in a 529-page prospectus recently distributed to partners in the property as part of a proposal to create a $5 billion publicly traded company featuring the building.

The Malkin real estate family, which controls the building, would not comment, saying that it was barred from discussing the property by regulators.

 

This from Bloomberg News 2013:

The Empire State Building’s managers were sued over claims they deprived thousands of early investors of as much as $410 million in profit when they took the New York skyscraper public as part of a group of properties.

Edited by Sway_xx

Share this post


Link to post

What about the Empire Strikes back cache? http://coord.info/GC4D7F

I live in NYC and I'll never get this because it costs $29 to go up there. It's a landmark, but it is also a for profit tourist attraction

 

I thought it was unfair that we have to pay to achieve this when I first read the listing, but after reading this thread, I'm wondering why it's even allowed.

 

This from a NY Times article in2011:

Ordinarily secret, the Empire State Building’s finances are buried in a 529-page prospectus recently distributed to partners in the property as part of a proposal to create a $5 billion publicly traded company featuring the building.

The Malkin real estate family, which controls the building, would not comment, saying that it was barred from discussing the property by regulators.

 

This from Bloomberg News 2013:

The Empire State Building’s managers were sued over claims they deprived thousands of early investors of as much as $410 million in profit when they took the New York skyscraper public as part of a group of properties.

Please don't force archival of a virtual. :ph34r:

 

My guess is that it's around perhaps because it's grandfathered in. The rules change over time, and grandfathering happens a lot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Tolls here in Brazil are managed by profitable non-governmental organizations (private ones actually), so all caches that require you to pay tolls or are placed in those freeways should never be published?

 

What about caches is amusement parks with administration permit? They shouldn´t be allowed?

 

Caches along toll roads, or at a place where you pay for parking would probably be allowed because you don't HAVE to go by car, you could walk or cycle, and there would be no charge, so the charge isn't necessary to get the cahce.

 

On the other hand you HAVE to pay to get into an amusement park, so it probably wouldn't be allowed.

 

However there are plenty of examples of caches inside amusement parks, so maybe it depends on your local reviewers discretion.

Share this post


Link to post

The old virts are grandfathered, as well as some old physical caches.

 

To JPreto, it's hard to say about your toll road question. Might depend upon whether the reviewer understood that it was toll road, or a for-profit toll road. Sometimes a private contractor takes over management, but the road is still owned by the government. The reviewer only knows what the cache page shows. Not some encyclopedic knowledge of the geography of earth.

 

Re parking lots, again, hard to say. There are municipal and private parking lots in many US cities that charge. Often you can walk into them, no fee. Go up on the roof, enjoy the view, find cache. If the only way to enter a parking area is by fee, and the fee is collected by a private business for profit, that's a commercial violation (again, unless it's quite old, say early 2003 or before).

 

Local to me, the Lowry Park Zoo is run by the city of Tampa, entry fee on the high side. Sometimes there are caches in it. The state parks have entry costs from zero - $13, usually it's $4 per car. Many caches in those.

 

I recall sending a cacher to appeals with a hide in the courtyard of an fine art museum. They were a non-profit. Entry fee on the high side. Appeals declined to publish. On the other hand I've seen them give the okay to a cache in similar situation, with a lower entry fee.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a couple of caches inside pay newspaper boxes years back. Now, if I found one inside a box I had to pay to open I'd log a Needs Archived, per the commercial guideline prohibition on, "purchase a product".

 

I once thought of a newspaper box selling "Cache Times" or whatever, that requires $2.00 in quarters. Drop in two bucks, open the door, and the money gets refunded into the change slot. "Bring eight quarters and a pen". It's the kind of cache that maybe "works" in one place on the planet, but I think it would get approved in that one place.

Share this post


Link to post

To JPreto, it's hard to say about your toll road question. Might depend upon whether the reviewer understood that it was toll road, or a for-profit toll road. Sometimes a private contractor takes over management, but the road is still owned by the government. The reviewer only knows what the cache page shows. Not some encyclopedic knowledge of the geography of earth.

 

Yeah, you are right about the "non-encyclopedic reviewers", moreover in the Brazil case where Brazilian reviewers are Portuguese living 8000km away from here... sometimes I have to explain them things about local laws but no problem about that, I actually prefer experienced reviewers that live 8000km away rather than inexperienced ones that live around the corner.

 

In any case, there are some caches published in freeways managed by profitable organizations, only accessible by a motor vehicle, but most of them are free for motorbikes, so... if you have a motorbike like me, you can get the cache for free, so no reason to archive those since "there is a way not to interact with the employers".

 

Again thanks all for the enlightenment about the specificity of caches that require you to pay a fee to access it. Just to resume these are my conclusions:

 

1) NO PROBLEM with caches that the fee is payed to a non-profitable organization.

2) NO PROBLEM with caches that the fee is payed to a governmental organization.

3) PROBLEM if the fees are payed to private organizations.

 

One case that is not clear to me is if you don´t have to interact with a private organization employer, like having an automatic paying machine with tourniquets, for instance?

Share this post


Link to post

What about the Empire Strikes back cache? http://coord.info/GC4D7F

I live in NYC and I'll never get this because it costs $29 to go up there. It's a landmark, but it is also a for profit tourist attraction

 

I thought it was unfair that we have to pay to achieve this when I first read the listing, but after reading this thread, I'm wondering why it's even allowed.

 

This from a NY Times article in2011:

Ordinarily secret, the Empire State Building’s finances are buried in a 529-page prospectus recently distributed to partners in the property as part of a proposal to create a $5 billion publicly traded company featuring the building.

The Malkin real estate family, which controls the building, would not comment, saying that it was barred from discussing the property by regulators.

 

This from Bloomberg News 2013:

The Empire State Building’s managers were sued over claims they deprived thousands of early investors of as much as $410 million in profit when they took the New York skyscraper public as part of a group of properties.

Please don't force archival of a virtual. :ph34r:

 

My guess is that it's around perhaps because it's grandfathered in. The rules change over time, and grandfathering happens a lot.

 

I can't force anything. I can however, ask a perfectly reasonable question. If it was grandfathered in, so be it.

Edited by Sway_xx

Share this post


Link to post
One case that is not clear to me is if you don´t have to interact with a private organization employer, like having an automatic paying machine with tourniquets, for instance?

 

The issue isn't just the interaction, it's paying. If you're paying for a service or product from a private for profit business, that's a commercial violation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Generally caches are allowed where the organization is a non profit.

Not so fast... some CEO of non profit organization are making very good money. I always laugh when I hear "non profit" because most of the time someone is making a "profit". <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Generally caches are allowed where the organization is a non profit.

Not so fast... some CEO of non profit organization are making very good money. I always laugh when I hear "non profit" because most of the time someone is making a "profit". <_<

Ok, this is a total off-topic but it is true... to be a non-profit organization all you must do is convert the money into assets like buying a car, motorcycle or house for the company but you, as president, can use it at your will so, it´s as if it was yours... but well, this is Groundspeak rules for placing a cache, not governmental or political issues regarding the incorrect usage of non-profit organization money.

Share this post


Link to post

Generally caches are allowed where the organization is a non profit.

Not so fast... some CEO of non profit organization are making very good money. I always laugh when I hear "non profit" because most of the time someone is making a "profit". <_<

Very true. I know some folks who have made large amounts of money working for non profits, but that does seem to be Groundspeak's general rule.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't expect a simple answer to this.

 

When I started geocaching the non-commercial guideline was interpreted very broadly to allow most caches to be published. Primarily this guideline was in place to prevent the cache pages from turning into advertisements for businesses. It was quite common to have cache where you would go into a store and interact with employees. So long a you didn't have to buy something the cache would be considered non-commercial. On top of this, it was also common back then to have caches in amusement parks and other places were you paid admission fees.

 

If you said on the cache page, I'm placing this cache to get people to go to the amusement park, it would be considered advertising. But if you avoided this, reviewers seemed to have no problem.

 

Overtime there were complaints that caches the required you to pay admission fees were essentially commercial in nature, and rather than viewing the cache as something cachers might like to do when the visiting the place anyhow, the cache was an enticement to get cachers to visit. People also complained if they had to interact with employees because they felt pressure to buy something, even if the cache page made it clear no purchase was necessary.

 

So guidelines were added specifically to make interacting with employees or requiring a purchase (presumable to include an entrance fee) enough to consider the cache as commercial. Personally, I see this an guideline creep, though I understand that there were some problematic caches due to fees or interaction with aggressive sales people.

 

When the guideline were first modified to prohibit purchase, Groundspeak specifically exempted fees to enter parks that were run by governmental agencies. The argument being that the the more restrictive commercial guidelines should not prevent you from placing caches in local, state, or national parks (assuming permission) just because there was an entrance fee. For example, the local national forest at the time, required you to purchase an Adventure Pass if you wanted to leave your car to go hiking or any other activity in the forest. Many people used this exemption to place caches in zoos, museums, gardens, and private parks that were run by non-profit organizations instead of government agencies. For the most part this was allowed, since there it is often hard to tell if something is publicly owned versus privately owned by run in the public interest. In one city the zoo is owned by the city, while in another it is run by a non-profit zoological society. It appears that guidelines creep is beginning to restrict these private organizations, though I suspect the issue is more likely the cache owner appearing to support an agenda by specifically supporting the mission of the private non-profit on the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in Las Vegas right now. There is a Virtual Cache at the Stratosphere (GC68E7). To Log it, one is required to purchase a Ticket ($30) to go to the top of the Tower. Several cachers Log it anyway, with a Picture of the Tower at ground level, and get away with it. I feel that neither should be allowed. I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

 

How do other cachers feel about this?

Share this post


Link to post

There ARE caches in amusement parks, at the top of the empire state building, in state parks that demand a fee for entrance, etc etc.

 

There is also an attribute you can apply to indicate that a fee may be required to reach the cache!!!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, D305er said:

How do other cachers feel about this?

Two thoughts on the subject:

 

1. I think you should start a new thread, rather than posting on a zombie thread that is 4 years old.

 

2. Seeing as the Listing you mentioned is 16 years old, I think you're a tad bit late to complain about it now.  Chances are, a Listing like that (Virtual or otherwise), would have a hard time getting past the Review process nowadays.   Like Korichnovui mentioned, things were a bit more relaxed back in 2002 in terms of commercial locations.  If you only came up with a single example, you obviously aren't trying very hard.

Edited by Touchstone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If it bothers you, don't do it. There are millions of others.

 

Why should all caches fit your value system?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

If it bothers you, don't do it. There are millions of others.

 

Why should all caches fit your value system?

 

Agreed! How about caches that require boats. Should those be disallowed too. $30 entrance fee is a lot cheaper than a boat. As said, go find a different one you can not find them all. Put them on your ignore list if the failure to get a smiley on your map truly bothers you,

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, D305er said:

I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

 

How do other cachers feel about this?

 

Did you post a DNF as you should when you did not find the cache?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Did you post a DNF as you should when you did not find the cache?

He didn't DNF it, he chose not to go look for it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

He didn't DNF it, he chose not to go look for it.

 

But he visited the coordinates and the terrain was too challenging without suitable tools. For me it is definitely a DNF.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

But he visited the coordinates and the terrain was too challenging without suitable tools. For me it is definitely a DNF.

All you know is he went to Vegas and while at Vegas he noticed there was a virtual that he chose not to go look for, you don't know that he was at the GZ, or how close to the GZ he was. I'm in London and there are hundreds of caches I've chosen not to go and look for - should I DNF them all?

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, D305er said:

Several cachers Log it anyway, with a Picture of the Tower at ground level, and get away with it. I feel that neither should be allowed. I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

 

I'd post NM log (later maybe NA log) - because it sounds like CO is not doing maintenance (of logs) on his cache page properly.

Either he should be sticked to his own standards - or loose those standards to accept pictures from ground level officially.

 

Reference: Maintenance expectations - https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&amp;id=38&amp;pgid=57

 

 

Quote

 

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

To the point of the fee - 30$ entrance fee to access the cache is a bit too high than acceptable standard in most of the countries.

But owners of Virtual Reward caches got a bit more latitude for their plans. It's the reward for them, for their overall contribution to the game.

It is rather intentional exception than standard.

Share this post


Link to post

I could come up with a long list of caches that require an entrance fee to get. Most of them are in State Parks.

What about Urban caches that you need to pay for parking in either a surface lot or garage?

What about going to HQ? Is there any free parking around there?

I even know of a virtual inside an airport. The only way to get to GZ is to have a boarding pass.

No one is making you go to those caches. If you don't want to pay the fee, there are plenty of other places that do have free parking options.

Edited by igator210
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, D305er said:

I'm in Las Vegas right now. There is a Virtual Cache at the Stratosphere (GC68E7). To Log it, one is required to purchase a Ticket ($30) to go to the top of the Tower. Several cachers Log it anyway, with a Picture of the Tower at ground level, and get away with it. I feel that neither should be allowed. I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

 

How do other cachers feel about this?

 

You are breaking one of those golden rules - What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

 

Digging back through the logs there are only a couple recent ones from the ground.  I wouldn't take that as they are being allowed but that the cache owner hasn't deleted them yet.   There are a few later back but they appear to be retro-logged.   I am guessing the owner ends up fighting a number of cachers over not going to the top.

 

Having logged this cache I am glad it exists.   To be honest we probably wouldn't have paid to go up if not for the cache but it was worth it in the end.  The view really is spectacular.    

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rikitan said:

To the point of the fee - 30$ entrance fee to access the cache is a bit too high than acceptable standard in most of the countries.

But owners of Virtual Reward caches got a bit more latitude for their plans. It's the reward for them, for their overall contribution to the game.

It is rather intentional exception than standard.

 

Entrance fees aren't in place just to access a cache.  They're created by some entity to access a place even if there were no caches there.  The distinction between when it's allowed and when it isn't is based on the type of entity.  State parks, and other entities are non-profit, non-commercial entities.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, igator210 said:

What about going to HQ? Is there any free parking around there?
 

Actually there is lots of free parking - but most of it is filled during the day.  I walked a 1/2 mile to an event there not being able to find any closer.  I was told you can park in the garage under the building and HQ will validate parking.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Rikitan said:

But owners of Virtual Reward caches got a bit more latitude for their plans. It's the reward for them, for their overall contribution to the game.

It is rather intentional exception than standard.

 

Never saw that anywhere.  Please explain where that's written.  Thanks.  :)

I don't believe that just because a virtual was given to certain COs,  they can bypass any guidelines...

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, D305er said:

There is a Virtual Cache at the Stratosphere (GC68E7). To Log it, one is required to purchase a Ticket ($30) to go to the top of the Tower. Several cachers Log it anyway, with a Picture of the Tower at ground level, and get away with it. I feel that neither should be allowed. I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

How do other cachers feel about this?

 

We have no fees at our state parks.  A state over, some require a yearly entrance fee. 

I won't pay a yearly fee just to get two caches taking only a couple hours, once n done.

Easy to just skip the ones you don't want to do...

I'd bet (and looks like...) that CO has had issues and remedied some, as "If your log does not include a valid photo, I reserve the right to delete your log! As with most virtual caches, you are expected to PHYSICALLY visit the site to log a find. Internet searches and other 'remote' methods of locating the information do not qualify. Also, no "retroactive" finds based on visits before the cache was created (though at this point, I'd be impressed  :)

And DO NOT use the cheesy photo background at the base of the building... I've seen it.  :)" implies.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, igator210 said:

I even know of a virtual inside an airport

 

Here a virtual was not allowed to publish at airport because the airport is a commercial building.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Never saw that anywhere.  Please explain where that's written.  Thanks.  :)

I don't believe that just because a virtual was given to certain COs,  they can bypass any guidelines...

 

That's not what I have written. Are you suggesting any guideline was bypassed? Which one?

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

That's not what I have written. Are you suggesting any guideline was bypassed? Which one?

 

 

You said that virtual reward cachers got a "bit more latitude for their plans ".

What did you mean by that ?    It sounds (to me) that you're saying some guidelines might have been "overlooked", in saying that the cache mentioned  is "rather intentional exception".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, D305er said:

I'm in Las Vegas right now. There is a Virtual Cache at the Stratosphere (GC68E7). To Log it, one is required to purchase a Ticket ($30) to go to the top of the Tower. Several cachers Log it anyway, with a Picture of the Tower at ground level, and get away with it. I feel that neither should be allowed. I won't Log it because I think that's not what Geocaching ist about. I have never logged a Cache without having properly found it the way it was meant.

 

How do other cachers feel about this?

I definitely agree you shouldn't log a find on a virtual cache that you didn't qualify for. It's too bad the CO doesn't delete the bogus logs, but, oh, well, not really my concern. I might file a DNF. It kinda depends on whether I felt like it was my fault (no DNF) or the CO's fault (DNF) that I didn't notice the in-passing mention of a fee to get to the correct spot.

 

I have no problem with a Virtual being in an area that doesn't have general access. I'd understand if the guidelines restricted the practice, but, personally, I don't consider it any different than a cache up a tree I can't climb. When I do a Virtual or an EarthCache on the fly without knowing anything about it until I'm at GZ, I'm fully prepared for something that makes it impossible for me to get a find. It could be that I don't want to spend $30, or it could be that I arrived 30 minutes after closing, or it could be that I need a tool I didn't bring along. It's all the same to me, so I have no interest in rules intended to protect me from encountering one obstacle or another.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

So, we know that lots of caches are placed inside of 'pay' areas.

 

This is hard to broadly qualify, and therefore hard to control through guidelines, but the factor that makes me care about it is the nature of the access to the area.

 

If there's an area for which I need to pay an entrance fee, and the cache isn't a PRIMARY reason to go there, then it's more acceptable to me.

 

For example, if it costs $5 to go to the zoo where there's a cache, then the presence of the cache is incidental to the main attraction and doesn't trip my irk-nerve.

 

If it's a place to which I'd never go EXCEPT to grab the cache, then I wouldn't go after it.

 

Pay to get into a park? Maybe; I get the beautiful park experience.
Pay a cover charge to get into a bar where I'm not going to drink? No.

 

Of course, this would be subject to each cacher's interest in the area, which makes it virtually impossible to guidelinically legislate.

 

The "Commercial-Use" guideline, along with the common-sense 'non-profit' unofficial exemption is probably the best way to handle it. In general, a cacher should not be forced to pay someone just to grab a smiley.

Share this post


Link to post

I see repeated comments that caches inside non-profit premises with an entrance fee are okay (while the same is not true for businesses).

 

And yet a quality, popular cache in a university-affiliated arboretum near me (that charges an entrance fee) was archived a couple of years ago because of the entrance fee (the archive note specifically says that).

Share this post


Link to post

Public or private university?  Reasonable entrance fee ($10) or high entrance fee?  Every cache is unique and turns on its own facts.

Share this post


Link to post

There is an attribute for entrance fee required, therefore just having an entrance fee is not a prohibition to listing a cache. As Keystone mentions, every cache is unique.

 

When deciding to pay to get into someplace to get a cache, I look at who I am paying. Before I started geocaching, I didn't purchase any annual passes. Because of geocaching, I now purchase a US Federal Annual Pass, and yearly passes for a couple of states. I haven't gone geocaching this year, nor have I gone to any parks this year, but I will continue to purchase these passes because of who they support. I would not pay any entrance fees to commercial entities just to log a cache. If I was going there anyway, sure I might log the cache.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I paid an entrance fee when recently overseas to visit an area, so I could get a 'smilie'. Local villages ran the area and this would have been one of their few sources of income, as mostly they live a subsistence lifestyle. For this reason I didn't mind paying. These people by western standards are poor, and the few entrance fees wouldn't add up to much either.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the information for all to evaluate.  First, while run as a non-profit by a non-profit university, it is also the "official arboretum" of the state of Pennsylvania, so there is a direct municipal connection that the reviewer seems to have overlooked.

 

It is exceptionally well maintained.  At first glance it seems that the admission is $19.00.  That's just the "rack rate" - there are many exceptions, including one that virually anyone can use...the walk-in or bike-in admission is $10.00.  I have driven past often and know you can park nearby and walk in.

 

Archiving this cache was a loss to the community.

IMG_20181129_204204.jpg

IMG_20181129_204551.jpg

IMG_20181129_204518.jpg

IMG_20181129_204620.jpg

Edited by wmpastor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, wmpastor said:

Archiving this cache was a loss to the community.

Wow!  Three years ago.  Sounds like it was pretty devastating to the community if folks haven't recovered from the loss of a single cache from that long ago.  Sorry to hear it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Wow!  Three years ago.  Sounds like it was pretty devastating to the community if folks haven't recovered from the loss of a single cache from that long ago.  Sorry to hear it.

 

Thanks for your sincere sentiments!  :rolleyes:

 

My point was that this archiving falls outside the usual standards expressed in this thread...I think that's undisputable.  For it to happen to a truly good cache is doubly unfortunate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

It is great to see an example from the other side of my state, where the guidance on entrance fees was applied consistently.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×