Guidelines...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You get that I wasn't seriously suggesting that TPTB do away with reviewers (other than Keystone), right? My underlying point was that the three requirements of all cachers that were being suggested by JPreto could never be universally fulfilled.

 

Yes, I got the first message and agree with you. I tried to say that even if all these three requirements were met universally (assume that hypothetically), there will still be cache submissions that are rejected/need to be changed due to guideline issues.

 

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

What is the problem to which you refer?

 

I wasn't thinking of anything specifc. It's been a general observation about feature suggestions, but to put it into the context of this thread:

 

JPreto wrote:

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

 

And you [rhetorically] followed up with:

If those three things were universally done, we wouldn't need any reviewers. Unfortunately, players of this game all come from the subset of 'humans'.

 

In response, Cezanne pointed out that reviewers would still be needed to deal with proximity guidelines (specifically, for caches that were not at the published coordinates).

 

I suppose that would an interesting data point if the goal were to eliminate reviewers, but if everyone (or even many) followed the suggestions that JPreto made, it could result in smaller workloads for reviewers, less confusion about why a cache which appears to violate the guidelines got published, and better relations between geocachers and reviewers. I see all those as benefits over the status quo.

 

As I see, some improvement is better than none at all.

 

[cezanne]

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

 

Like sbell I do not understand to which problem you refer. Anyway, I did not object against the three points proposed by JPreto (even when it is unrealistic to expect that all cachers will follow them). I objected against the statement that under such a hypothesis every cache submission will get approved and against the implicit assumption that guideline violations cannot happen when one follows points 1)-3).

The saturation guideline in cache dense areas is a perfect example to demonstrate what I refer to.

[cezanne]

but if everyone (or even many) followed the suggestions that JPreto made, it could result in smaller workloads for reviewers, less confusion about why a cache which appears to violate the guidelines got published, and better relations between geocachers and reviewers.

 

I fully agree with this statement, but not with the original one by JPreto which was much stronger.

[+JPreto]

Why do suggestions such as this (even if rhetorical) have to be the ultimate solution that solves every aspect of a problem. Isn't it enough that a proposed solution to a problem might result in a significant reduction in the number of occurrences of a problem?

 

Like sbell I do not understand to which problem you refer. Anyway, I did not object against the three points proposed by JPreto (even when it is unrealistic to expect that all cachers will follow them). I objected against the statement that under such a hypothesis every cache submission will get approved and against the implicit assumption that guideline violations cannot happen when one follows points 1)-3).

The saturation guideline in cache dense areas is a perfect example to demonstrate what I refer to.

Absolutism, always absolutism... right?

 

If one, just one, out of all geocachers would change the way he plays the game following the 3 points the game would be already winning... Of course not all geocachers would, but if most would (which I feel is not the case in the present time) it would be great for geocaching.

 

By stating this I am trying to reach to the conclusion that if more people would choose the hypothesis A) the game would be better for most players, and even reviewers... or not?

 

And of course, since mystery caches are, most of them placed in coordinates different than the original ones, it is pretty simple to understand that not all submission would be approved, due to cache saturation but most submissions that are disallowed by other breaches of the guidelines would be almost gone.

 

Like I heard one day: "It´s all about information, having it or not!"

 

ADD A PS: And yes, I believe in the "Chaos Theory"

Edited August 21, 2014 by JPreto

[cezanne]

Absolutism, always absolutism... right?

 

Your statement was absolute, not mine.

 

And of course, since mystery caches are, most of them placed in coordinates different than the original ones, it is pretty simple to understand that not all submission would be approved, due to cache saturation but most submissions that are disallowed by other breaches of the guidelines would be almost gone.

 

So why did you then make the claim that if all cachers followed 1)-3) all submissions would be approved?

 

Moreover, the probability that a challenge cache gets rejected is also quite high and I'd say that even for me who follows this forum in a regular manner it is higher than 50% in the first attempt.

 

There are several aspects in the guidelines where I need to admit that I do not fully understand them and that I could never say in advance for sure whether or not a particular cache idea someone tells me about will go through with a particular reviewer.

Edited August 21, 2014 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

So why did you then make the claim that if all cachers followed 1)-3) all submissions would be approved?

I think that you are referring to my post. I opined that if all cachers followed the guidelines, then we wouldn't need reviewers. It was an unrealistic idea and really just a thinly vieled attempt to get rid of Keystone.

[cezanne]

I think that you are referring to my post.

 

No, I did not refer to your post at the first hand - the real source of my objection came from the post of JPreto where he claimed that all submissions would get approved if everyone followed 1)-3).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think that you are referring to my post.

 

No, I did not refer to your post at the first hand - the real source of my objection came from the post of JPreto where he claimed that all submissions would get approved if everyone followed 1)-3).

 

Okay, you've made your point that all submissions would not get approved if even if everyone followed 1-3. Can we move on?

 

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

What I am trying to say is that reviewers have a great role on enforcing the guidelines and trying to make other players understand the game guidelines but this wouldn´t be necessary if players:

 

1) knew the guidelines

2) where willing to respect the guidelines

3) didn´t try to "trick" the reviewers

Aside from sbell111's commment that geocachers come from the set of humans whose imperfections are well documented, I find this to be a bit too much to expect.

 

Of course when you submit a cache you check a box that you have read and understood the guidelines. But in fact the guidelines are not always clear. Some are intentionally written to leave wiggle room. So while you can expect people to have read the guidelines, it may be beyond any individuals ability to know all the nuances and interpretations. The reviewers are expected to know the guidelines better than most others becuase they deal with them on a daily basis. But even reviewers will ask other reviewers for an opinion on a difficult issue or even differ to a Grounspeak lackey to make certain rulings. And Groundspeak lackeys have just as much trouble with some guidelines. I've seen lackeys change their positions on issue after discussion in the forums or after Jeremy or Bryan weigh in with a different point of view.

 

And the guidelines are not carved in stone. Sometimes after an unforseen situation a new guideline is added. Other times language is changed to make the meaning clearer or to simplify the guideline. Even if you get the newsletter and participate in forums, you might miss the change. Often when the language is simplified, the lackeys will tell the reviewers that this doesn't change the guidelines. Yet a language change often results in allowing a different interpretation and caches they used to get published are denied or visa versa.

 

Cachers should understand that the guidelines are what the reviewers use to determine the caches that are listable on Geocaching.com. As such they should respect the guidelines and reviewers' decisions. But often, when there is some interprepation allowed, a cacher may feel that their cache complies with the guideline or qualifies for an exception. Groundspeak does provide an appeals process to deal with these cases. One of the things that has changed over the years in the appeals process. It used to include a suggestion to post in the forum. Now there are simply instructions for contacting the appeals group at Grounspeak HQ.

 

Of course many people who take the time to hide a geocache will take great pride in their work. They may feel their idea is so cool that it should be give an exception to some guideline. The guidelines say "If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com." Yet, we do see some people who feel that what the reviewer doesn't know won't hurt them, and so simply fail to reveal that the cache is violating some guideline. I suspect that "tricking" the reviewer is one of the violations of the TOUs that is taken most seriously. People who are knowingly trying to get caches with guidelines issues published by hiding this from the reviewer are likely put on a special list and their caches are subjected to more scrutiny. In addition, I've little doubt that multiple attempts to do this have resulted in accounts being banned.

 

One thing implied but not explicitly stated in this list of guidelines enforcement is the idea that cachers should be reporting guidelines violation when they see them - the so-called "cache cop". I'm not entirely sure that people need to be encouraged to be cache cops, or to be shamed if they decide not to report some violation. Frankly, I'm aware that the guidelines change, that they are subject to interpretation, and that in some instances Groundpeak or reviewer may allow exceptions. I may reasonably assume that an old cache was grandfathered when guidelines changed, or that a cache placed by Ms. Johnson's 3rd grade class with permission of Principal Smith can be on the edge of school property. Also, I am willing to look at intent of the guideline. Sure it might seem obvious that someone dug a hole for the cache or put a nail in a tree. I'm not likely going to report this if it is some place where the hider probably had permission for this type of hide (for example on the hider's property). I can understand that some people want no holes or no nails to be an absolute rule and may believe that a cacher who sees a hide like this would copy it in an inappropriate place. I see the intent of these guidelines to be to reassure land managers that geocaches won't cause damage to public property. A cache here or there with permission doesn't seem to something that is going to cause the disaster that the Chicken Littles of the forum claim. But this is just an opinion and I respect the opinion of cachers who think that such caches should be reported.

[+sbell111]

I remain confused as to where we are moving on to.

 

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines. I think that pretty much everyone agrees with this.

[+JPreto]

I remain confused as to where we are moving on to.

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines. I think that pretty much everyone agrees with this.

 

So if they "should understand and follow" something isn´t that the meaning of a rule?

[cezanne]

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines.

 

Do you fully understand the guideline for challenge caches? I have to admit that I don't.

 

The commercial guideline is another example where I have troubles in judging what might cause a problem. For example, if someone hides a long

distance hiking cache and mentions the only 2 or 3 inns that are on the way I regard this as essential information for the hiker and not as violation of the commercial

guideline, but apparently (some, all?) reviewers see it differently. (One of the reasons why I like to use multi caches for selecting a hike is that

the cache descriptions used to provide me with a kind of all inclusive package with respect to the necessary information.)

Edited August 21, 2014 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines.

Do you fully understand the guideline for challenge caches? I have to admit that I don't.

Okay, how about:

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability.

[cezanne]

Okay, how about:

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability.

 

I do not think that someone will object against this goal, but in this formulation we come back to the origin of this thread and the

question how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood.

 

To provide an example: In my understanding, it is ok if someone with 15 finds hides a nice cache that fulfills all requirements because I do not

consider the recommendation that one first should find a greater number of caches as a rule/law. It appears that JPreto thinks that every sentence

of the guidelines/Help center articles/geocaching 101 should be followed as a rule.

[+tozainamboku]

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines.

Do you fully understand the guideline for challenge caches? I have to admit that I don't.

Okay, how about:

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability.

How about

Prior to placing and submitting any and all geocaches, please read the following guidelines so that your geocache can be published promptly. If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

and

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group.

[+The A-Team]

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines.

Do you fully understand the guideline for challenge caches? I have to admit that I don't.

Okay, how about:

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability.

How about

Prior to placing and submitting any and all geocaches, please read the following guidelines so that your geocache can be published promptly. If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

and

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group.

Nice! Maybe they should use that wording on the guideline page.

[+JPreto]

I do not think that someone will object against this goal, but in this formulation we come back to the origin of this thread and the question how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood.

That is exactly my question on the original post: "how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood"

 

To provide an example: In my understanding, it is ok if someone with 15 finds hides a nice cache that fulfills all requirements because I do not consider the recommendation that one first should find a greater number of caches as a rule/law. It appears that JPreto thinks that every sentence of the guidelines/Help center articles/geocaching 101 should be followed as a rule.

 

And even tho most opinions here say that "People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability" still don´t feel that they should be considered rules of the game?

 

I can´t get this point... So you, on one hand say that every player should "know, try to understand and follow the guidelines" but on the other hand say "but some guidelines are recommendations and we can do whatever we feel like".

 

I can´t understand, really. In my head this is contradictory... Maybe it´s just me...

 

(And please, don´t take this as an offensive comment, I am really trying do say what I feel and think)

Edited August 21, 2014 by JPreto

[+MKFmly]

So if they "should understand and follow" something isn´t that the meaning of a rule?

A rule as in:

 

a strip of wood or other rigid material used for measuring length or marking straight lines; a ruler.

[cezanne]

I do not think that someone will object against this goal, but in this formulation we come back to the origin of this thread and the question how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood.

That is exactly my question on the original post: "how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood"

 

Yes, that's why I wrote that we come back to the origin of the thread.

 

And even tho most opinions here say that "People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability" still don´t feel that they should be considered rules of the game?

 

I can´t get this point... So you, on one hand say that every player should "know, try to understand and follow the guidelines" but on the other hand say "but some guidelines are recommendations and we can do whatever we feel like". I can´t understand, really. In my head this is contradictory... Maybe it´s just me...

 

It's not contradictory at all. The key issue is how one understands the respective statements. This is part of the statement "one should understand them to the best of ones abilitiy".

I understand some parts of the guidelines/Help center articles as strict rules with no possible exception, other parts as rules where in special cases the reviewers or Groundspeak can make exceptions and still other parts as suggestions that make sense as a general orientation. I have seen several caches hidden by cachers with less than 20 finds which are far better than 90% of the caches hidden by cachers with >1000 finds.

I have hidden a number of caches back in 2003 (all before my 100-th find) and I would not hide these caches in an essentially different manner today after 11.5 years.

 

It's pretty obvious that if I understand a statement not as a rule/law, that I do not think that it needs necessarily be followed, but rather think that it depends on the situation.

[+The A-Team]

I can´t understand, really. In my head this is contradictory... Maybe it´s just me...

That's the point. It's clear from this discussion that nobody knows for certain how to treat the guidelines/requirements. Due to the intentionally vague nature of the guidelines, there is no single correct way to interpret them. Interpret and treat them as you understand them, and the reviewer/appeals will let you know if they have a different interpretation of them. That's about all we can do.

[+MKFmly]

JPreto

 

In all seriousness, the below quote may illustrate some of the fine lines between rules and guidelines and why there is such a broad spectrum of opinion. (and there are many variations of the definition)

 

1.Authoritative statement of what to do or not to do in a specific situation, issued by an appropriate person or body. It clarifies, demarcates, or interprets a law or policy.

 

2.Statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct.

 

Rules may be divided into four general categories:

 

(1) Folklore: Unpublished rules that are conveyed by behavior and are implicitly understood.

(2) Guidelines: Commonly published and recommended practices that allow some discretion with their interpretation and use.

(3) Mandates: Published commands that may not be ignored in any circumstance and whose violation is punished.

(4) Policies: Published rules that imply a predicted behavior and whose violation may be permitted or tolerated under certain circumstances.

 

Is there a governing body for geocaching? Groundspeak is obviously the biggest contributor HOWEVER they consider themselves a "listing service" not a governing body. They have no authority outside of the requirements and guidelines for listing a cache ON THEIR SITE. I respect their right to manage their listing service with respect to that business and I respect the holistic approach to maintaining the longevity of the leisure activity.

 

However, I do not expect them to offer anything more than a list of the coordinates of geocache(s). I do not accept that they enact geocaching legislation or govern the global leisure activity.

 

Further to your initial and subsequent positions, I do not accept that every guideline violation (wrt their site) is a portent of doom, that someone is trying to get away with something to the detriment of the game, or that a violation is intentional or malicious, or designed to "trick" anyone.

 

Mistakes are made, oversights happen, discretion is used, and exceptions are tolerated under certain circumstances, I am willing to give most the benifit of the the doubt...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Okay, how about:

People who place caches should understand and follow the guidelines to the best of their ability.

 

I do not think that someone will object against this goal, but in this formulation we come back to the origin of this thread and the

question how the guidelines and help center articles are to be understood.

 

To provide an example: In my understanding, it is ok if someone with 15 finds hides a nice cache that fulfills all requirements because I do not

consider the recommendation that one first should find a greater number of caches as a rule/law. It appears that JPreto thinks that every sentence

of the guidelines/Help center articles/geocaching 101 should be followed as a rule.

 

Since you brought this up before and I didn't respond last time I might as well do now. This is a guideline. I searched a bit and couldn't find anything in the listing requirements, help center, or Geocaching 101 which mentions a specific number of finds one should have before placing a cache. The geocaching 101 ages has a good *suggestion* though:

 

" Before considering your first geocache hide, we suggest that you find a variety of caches in your area. Seeing caches in a variety of locations, in different containers and hidden by a variety of users will help you understand what makes a great cache hide. This makes it more likely that you too will hide an interesting cache that everyone will enjoy!"

 

Note the lack of a specific number of hides or absolute language ("This makes it more likely"). I know that you recently referred to examples of some caches placed by beginners with very view finds that turned out to be well done, but for every "good" cache you might show us, I'm sure that many will be able to show lots of cache placed by beginners that are complete train wrecks. Your few examples are more likely exception to a strong correlation between experience and placing caches that most will enjoy.

 

Even if the guidelines did specify a specific number hides before placing a cache, I can't recall hearing about a single instance of someone having a cache rejected sole base on the number of finds the hider had done.

 

[+GeoBain]

1.Authoritative statement of what to do or not to do in a specific situation, issued by an appropriate person or body. It clarifies, demarcates, or interprets a law or policy.

 

2.Statement that establishes a principle or standard, and serves as a norm for guiding or mandating action or conduct.

 

Rules may be divided into four general categories:

 

(1) Folklore: Unpublished rules that are conveyed by behavior and are implicitly understood.

(2) Guidelines: Commonly published and recommended practices that allow some discretion with their interpretation and use.

(3) Mandates: Published commands that may not be ignored in any circumstance and whose violation is punished.

(4) Policies: Published rules that imply a predicted behavior and whose violation may be permitted or tolerated under certain circumstances.

 

Using this definition, I herby agree with JPetro that all the published and unpublished guidelines are rules.

Edited August 22, 2014 by GeoBain

[+JPreto]

JPreto

 

In all seriousness, the below quote may illustrate some of the fine lines between rules and guidelines and why there is such a broad spectrum of opinion. (and there are many variations of the definition)

 

[...]

 

Further to your initial and subsequent positions, I do not accept that every guideline violation (wrt their site) is a portent of doom, that someone is trying to get away with something to the detriment of the game, or that a violation is intentional or malicious, or designed to "trick" anyone.

 

Thank you, Thank you... and again thank you!!!! Best answer so far!!!!!

 

This I can understand and relate to. The thing is exactly what you point out (that I put in bold) is the will of some players to "do things their way" because of the absence of a strict conduct in geocaching guidelines and with that hurting the game.

 

What I defend is that I trust Groundspeak guidelines to protect the game... If most players felt the same way, there wouldn´t be so many issues about so many "simple things" because, in doubt, the player would always opt for the option that was more prone to be within the guidelines instead of, just the opposite, trying to bend them.

 

Get my point of view, and get why I put the questions in the first post?

 

I really wanted to understand how someone wants to protect the game and, at the same time, try to bend the recommendations that manage the game.

 

Again, thank you so much for the post MKFmly!

Edited August 22, 2014 by JPreto

[+SwineFlew]

We got reviewers to "protect" GS's interests.

 

Sometime a cacher dont know the story of why a so so park doesnt have any caches on it.

[+JPreto]

We got reviewers to "protect" GS's interests.

So, you are saying that if the interests of GS are different from your interests in a situation, it is OK to bend the guidelines in your favor, because the reviewers are there to have the last word?

 

Is that it?

[+niraD]

I really wanted to understand how someone wants to protect the game and, at the same time, try to bend the recommendations that manage the game.

I tend to follow the robustness principle, which might be paraphrased as: Be conservative in the caches you try to list, and be liberal in the caches you allow others to list.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I also like the 3 points mentioned above.

 

The problem is, at least here in America, we have many people with an unhealthy attitude toward rules, laws, guidelines, or really any authority. Take a drive on a major highway and see how many people go zooming by with no attention being paid to the speed limit; they are going as fast as they can. Go to your average parking lot and see how many people are inventing their own parking spaces. And this is with something as serious and dangerous as automobiles! How do you expect those kinds of folks to be well-behaved and respectful in something like Geocaching where the rules are less concrete and the consequences far from life-or-death?

 

In other games, the consequences of making your own rules are also less significant. If you play football with flags instead of tackling or without kicking you aren't really endangering the game itself. If you bury a cache or drill into a tree you risk getting all geocaches banned from an area. If you ignore private property you can get to arrests or even dangerous confrontations with irate land owners.

 

To answer this thread's original question: I think the Requirements & Guidelines should be treated as laws most of the time, especially the parts about hiding. They have to have some degree of flexibility simply because this is an open-world game with essentially infinite possiblities and you simply can't account for every possible situation. Especially since Reviewers usually have to make decisions about cache hides they have never personally seen.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Joshism

[+wmpastor]

↑↑↑ Americans have an "unhealthy" attitude toward getting around rules? Well, at least we know where you stand. On this side issue, I believe that this is not an American issue. I think that with certain types of rules, people in some other countries push the limits more.

 

A rule is like a fence. Conduct on this side is okay, & on the other side isn't. People have different attitudes about conduct near the fence. Also, a rule cannot always clearly cover every action. The fence is lost in the fog. There can be an honest debate about what's okay. And it's okay to go right up to the limit. One inch from the fence is just as legal as a mile away.

[cezanne]

Even if the guidelines did specify a specific number hides before placing a cache, I can't recall hearing about a single instance of someone having a cache rejected sole base on the number of finds the hider had done.

 

I have not heard of any such example either and that's why I think that the statement in the geocaching 101 has been made exactly for the reason you mentioned (and I have mentioned before) namely that nowadays it is more likely that a beginner with almost no finds will hide a bad/problematic cache than a good cache.

 

I'm not against the inclusion of the statement in the geocaching 101 (rather the contrary), I just wanted to explain to JPreto why I do not think that all statements in the guidelines, help center articles and geocaching 101 are meant as strict laws. I do not think that someone violates the geocaching ethics or harms the game when he/she does not treat each such statement like a law. If someone hides a nice cache and has only 10 finds, they are not harming geocaching in my opinion and should not be regarded as persons who are not willing to follow rules.

 

I rather think that there actions which are not mentioned in any Groundspeak document that can very well harm geocaching and it is more important to use common sense and try to avoid such actions too instead of requesting that anyone should follow all Groundspeak statements in a very strict way (and in my opinion in a stricter way than intended).

Edited August 22, 2014 by cezanne

[cezanne]

This I can understand and relate to. The thing is exactly what you point out (that I put in bold) is the will of some players to "do things their way" because of the absence of a strict conduct in geocaching guidelines and with that hurting the game.

 

Actually, I understood MKFmly completely differently than you. I also liked the post by MKFmly which summarizes why I do not share at all your opinion.

 

What I defend is that I trust Groundspeak guidelines to protect the game... If most players felt the same way, there wouldn´t be so many issues about so many "simple things" because, in doubt, the player would always opt for the option that was more prone to be within the guidelines instead of, just the opposite, trying to bend them.

 

As I said before as long as you stick with your opinion that all statements by Groundspeak (including all help center articles and the geocaching 101) have to be followed as strict rules and regard any deviation as bending rules, I have to disagree with you. In my opinion there are better ways to protect geocaching than thoughtlessly following some statements. To provide you with an extreme example (just a hypothetical question): Would you be willing to do something Groundspeak added to the guidelines that you think that harms geocaching?

 

I do understand why Groundspeak removed the powertrail guideline, but I think that this harms geocaching in the long run and I'm strictly against powertrails and not only would never hide one, but also would immediately archive a cache of mine when a powertrail shows up on the route of my cache. I do not expect others to do the same.

I just wanted to demonstrate that I do not regard Groundspeak as moral authority for geocaching in the sense that they only have the goal to protect geocaching. A lot of the guidelines are a compromise between what can be enforced without putting too much work load on the voluntary reviewers and what would be better for geocaching (irrespective from the fact that there is no concensus about what is good/bad for geocaching in general).

 

Cezanne