GeoTrails Excempt From Proximity Guidelines?

[+JL_HSTRE]

New Kennedy Space Center GeoTrail (KSCGT) here in Florida. It's not unheard of for special caches or cache series to skirt the commercial guidelines, but at least there is an educational aspect here.

 

More troublesome is that 3 of the 10 caches violate proximity guidelines and not just by a few feet.

 

GC5DHK7 is 414 ft from GC4707C

GC5E4JX is 420 ft from GCZXK1 (Wherigo also nearby but the Final is more than 528 ft away)

GC5DHJP is 432 ft from GC141JC and 456 ft from GC50Z8M

 

Given that it is 3 different caches - one with multiple conflicts - I'm pretty confident this is not a Reviewer error.

 

Does Groundspeak care to explain themselves?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Joshism

[+T.D.M.22]

Reviewer mistake. Maybe special permission was had. Maybe some other way that they got it past the reviewers. Reviewers are human (abs some are dogs) so they are not perfect when they do a job they don't get paid to do.vwhy not asks the reviewer who approved them?

[jholly]

New Kennedy Space Center GeoTrail (KSCGT) here in Florida. It's not unheard of for special caches or cache series to skirt the commercial guidelines, but at least there is an educational aspect here.

 

More troublesome is that 3 of the 10 caches violate proximity guidelines and not just by a few feet.

 

GC5DHK7 is 414 ft from GC4707C

Post Reviewer Note

10/05/2014

 

This cache has special permission from Groundspeak / Geocaching HQ.

Thank you!

 

This entry was edited by MissJenn on Monday, 06 October 2014 at 19:37:00 UTC.

 

GC5E4JX is 420 ft from GCZXK1 (Wherigo also nearby but the Final is more than 528 ft away)

 

Post Reviewer Note

10/05/2014

 

This cache has special permission from Groundspeak / Geocaching HQ.

Thank you!

 

This entry was edited by MissJenn on Monday, 06 October 2014 at 19:36:17 UTC.

 

GC5DHJP is 432 ft from GC141JC and 456 ft from GC50Z8M

Write note

10/06/2014

 

This cache has special permission from Groundspeak / Geocaching HQ.

Thank you!

Given that it is 3 different caches - one with multiple conflicts - I'm pretty confident this is not a Reviewer error.

 

Does Groundspeak care to explain themselves?

 

I think they already have.

 

Edit: This is why they are called guidelines.

Edited October 8, 2014 by jholly

[+MissJenn]

Joshism,

jholly has quoted my text posted to the cache pages you pointed out. That is in red above.

Also, please note that the Kennedy Space Center GeoTour is one of the official GeoTours and not a geotrail.

 

Thanks for answering the question, jholly.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

I always thought "special permission" had to do with the commercial guideline, not something to be used for proximity.

 

If a county wanted to get an influx of geo-tourism by outdoing the E.T. Highway with 2000 caches 100 ft apart but they paid Groundspeak to be an Official GeoTour could that get special permission too?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Joshism

[Keystone]

I won't address your reductio ad absurdum hypothetical, but I will offer this practical observation:

 

Geo Tours are, by definition, set up with permission arranged by the sponsoring entity (Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Board, etc.) and the land owners where the Geo Tour caches are placed. Given that fact, the land owners who grant permission for the Geo Tour cache also have the power to revoke permission for the existing cache 400 feet away. If the exception isn't granted, it's been my experience that the land manager will insist upon the archival of the conflicting cache on their property, so that their desired cache can be published. Would you prefer that result?

 

It's also been my experience that Geocaching HQ will grant exceptions to many of the listing guidelines, in cases where it makes sense to do so. Cache Saturation exceptions for land managers and Geo Tour organizers are a common example.

[cezanne]

If the exception isn't granted, it's been my experience that the land manager will insist upon the archival of the conflicting cache on their property, so that their desired cache can be published. Would you prefer that result?

 

Personally, I would prefer if the geocaching community would be informed about such a situation (the request that the conflicting caches should be removed, not the saturation issue) so that everyone can decide to boycott the resulting geotour if they wanted.

 

It's also been my experience that Geocaching HQ will grant exceptions to many of the listing guidelines, in cases where it makes sense to do so. Cache Saturation exceptions for land managers and Geo Tour organizers are a common example.

 

Is there a lower limit how far down an exception would be granted for cache saturation? Would 100 feet or 200 feet possible? Has anyone seen an example well beyond 400 feet?

I wonder whether caches of a geotrail could not effectively ruin multi stages caches by giving away their location (apparently not the case in this example).

 

Cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's also been my experience that Geocaching HQ will grant exceptions to many of the listing guidelines, in cases where it makes sense to do so. Cache Saturation exceptions for land managers and Geo Tour organizers are a common example.

 

I looked at this geotour, and I don't see how it makes sense to make an exception to the saturation guidelines in this case. There are 10 caches in the tour, scattered from Tampa, Fl. to Cape Canaveral, to Daytona Beach. It doesn't appear that any of the caches are are actually at the Kennedy Space Center. I didn't look at all the listing but one of them with apparent proximity issues is in a small park that already has 2-3 caches and from what I could tell there wasn't any reason what it had to be closer than 528' from another cache or even in that park. They used the width of Florida to place those 10 caches. There is plenty of space where caches could be placed that were not within 528' of another physical cache.

 

 

[cezanne]

I looked at this geotour, and I don't see how it makes sense to make an exception to the saturation guidelines in this case. There are 10 caches in the tour, scattered from Tampa, Fl. to Cape Canaveral, to Daytona Beach.

 

The rationale for Groundspeak appears to be to avoid anything that might potentially annoy a land manage including even asking whether it would not be possible to move a planned cache as there is already another cache exists close by. Of course geocaching depends on the good will of land managers and property owners and I do understand why Groundspeak makes an effort to avoid conflicts.

 

I wonder however whether one can hurt organizations setting up geotours without the minimum amount of respect for the caches that the geocaching community has already put out by simply not visiting those geotours.

 

I have come across many geotours which are just an arbitrary agglomeration of separate caches and the linking element is just those who visited all caches (or rather are able to name a password or something of that type) get some kind of reward. I do not see any direct connection to geocaching.

 

It doesn't appear that any of the caches are are actually at the Kennedy Space Center.

 

I think the geotour has its name due to the trackable exposition at the Kennedy Space Center where apparently those who collected all passwords get a trackable as reward.

I wonder about the value of such types of geotours since quite a while, but that's just me.

 

Cezanne

[+JL_HSTRE]

I won't address your reductio ad absurdum hypothetical

 

I don't think my hypothetical GeoTour is unrealistic. How big of a deal is the ET Highway? To the point where the locals appealed to the DOT to get it reinstated. If you could trump all other power trails in existence it might be worth your while for the geo-tourism. If you consider 200 ft absurd how about 2000 caches placed 400 ft apart?

 

There's a big difference between "Groundspeak would allow caches in a GeoTour to be within 400 ft of an existing cache" and "Groundspeak will ignore the proximity guideline completely at our discretion."

 

It's like knowing two people who habitually speed. One consistently drives 5 mph over the posted speed limit when conditions allow. The other drives as fast as they can get away with no regard for the posted speed limit.

 

but I will offer this practical observation:

 

Geo Tours are, by definition, set up with permission arranged by the sponsoring entity (Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Board, etc.) and the land owners where the Geo Tour caches are placed.

 

Unless the account name is misleading, this was set up by the Kennedy Space Center - not the State Park service or even a CoC/Tourist Board.

 

Given that fact, the land owners who grant permission for the Geo Tour cache also have the power to revoke permission for the existing cache 400 feet away. If the exception isn't granted, it's been my experience that the land manager will insist upon the archival of the conflicting cache on their property, so that their desired cache can be published. Would you prefer that result?

 

I think going that route is asking for trouble from irate cachers. It's one thing to ASK for a cache to be archived or moved and another to say "We're revoking your permission to place our own cache." I think most COs, if approached politely, would be willing to archive one of their cache to make way for something special like a GeoTour unless their existing cache was special (personal significance, lots of Favorites, etc).

 

How did that situation in NJ ever turn out?

 

The route taken by Groundspeak sends the message that enough money can exempt you from any Guideline and therefore the Guidelines shouldn't be taken seriously. How am I supposed to defend the sanctity of the Guidelines to people who blow them off if Groundspeak does this? The alternative you suggest just sends a different negative message: this land manager is a jerk. I think there has to be a Door Number Three involving some kind of compromise with the organization setting up the GeoTour.

 

It's also been my experience that Geocaching HQ will grant exceptions to many of the listing guidelines, in cases where it makes sense to do so. Cache Saturation exceptions for land managers and Geo Tour organizers are a common example.

 

If the proximity exemption were trivial (5 ft, opposite side of a river, etc) it might be one thing. This is a matter of 75-100 ft on multiple caches. We've reached the point where regular Reviewers are giving essentially zero leeway. Lets not go all Animal Farm here were some COs are more equal than others when it comes to the Guidelines, especially not when those COs are buying their exemptions - and for places like public parks no less.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Premium membership earns players certain perks. How much does it cost to create a GeoTour? Can a group of ordinary cachers get together and call themselves the Tri-State History Club and place a GeoTour?

 

Is GeoTour another name for... Platinum Membership???

 

[cezanne]

I think most COs, if approached politely, would be willing to archive one of their cache to make way for something special like a GeoTour unless their existing cache was special (personal significance, lots of Favorites, etc).

 

I dare to doubt that every GeoTour is something special from the point of view of the provided caching experience. Often it rather just seems to be a marketing action.

[+niraD]

I think most COs, if approached politely, would be willing to archive one of their cache to make way for something special like a GeoTour unless their existing cache was special (personal significance, lots of Favorites, etc).

I dare to doubt that every GeoTour is something special from the point of view of the provided caching experience. Often it rather just seems to be a marketing action.

And local geocachers might object if permission were revoked just to support a marketing action.

[Mr.Yuck]

I think most COs, if approached politely, would be willing to archive one of their cache to make way for something special like a GeoTour unless their existing cache was special (personal significance, lots of Favorites, etc).

I dare to doubt that every GeoTour is something special from the point of view of the provided caching experience. Often it rather just seems to be a marketing action.

And local geocachers might object if permission were revoked just to support a marketing action.

 

Oh boy, that one again. That was not so much a marketing action, but a park ranger, who just happens to be a for the numbers geocacher, wanting old caches archived for their new "interpretive geotrail". I suppose it does reinforce Keystone's point that a land manager that is part of a GeoTour could revoke permission for existing caches if an exception is not made for the new cache. Perhaps the New Jersey fiasco even came into play making these exceptions, who knows?

[+Michaelcycle]

I think most COs, if approached politely, would be willing to archive one of their cache to make way for something special like a GeoTour unless their existing cache was special (personal significance, lots of Favorites, etc).

I dare to doubt that every GeoTour is something special from the point of view of the provided caching experience. Often it rather just seems to be a marketing action.

And local geocachers might object if permission were revoked just to support a marketing action.

 

Oh boy, that one again. That was not so much a marketing action, but a park ranger Resource Interpretive Specialist, who just happens to be a for the numbers geocacher, wanting old caches archived for their new "interpretive geotrail". I suppose it does reinforce Keystone's point that a land manager that is part of a GeoTour could revoke permission for existing caches if an exception is not made for the new cache. Perhaps the New Jersey fiasco even came into play making these exceptions, who knows?

 

Just keeping that part of the record straight.

 

I still don't understand why the parties involved in cases like this don't use a "I'll move a little this way and you move a little that way." approach or just ask the pre-existing cache owner if s/he would like the cache to become part of the new trail. I know that these ideas will not work every time (special locations, etc) but GS ought to emphasize compromise as a first choice over forced archiving or guideline bending.

[Clan Riffster]

If a county wanted to get an influx of geo-tourism by outdoing the E.T. Highway with 2000 caches 100 ft apart but they paid Groundspeak to be an Official GeoTour could that get special permission too?

Just my opinion. Where your question entered the realm of the absurd is when you escalated something which has, historically, been focused on 10 to 20 caches, and bumped it to 2000 caches. You and I both know this will never happen. Rather than inflate a question to the point of silliness, why not focus on the real question of proximity? Something worded to the effect of, "If Lake Bubba County Park wanted to create an official GeoTour with 15 caches, set 100' apart, could that get special permission too?" would be far more effective.

 

I don't think my hypothetical GeoTour is unrealistic.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

How big of a deal is the ET Highway?

To me? It's not a big deal. To the numbers crowd, it could be a big deal. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. When I think of the E.T. Highway, all I see is a giant eyesore.

 

To the point where the locals appealed to the DOT to get it reinstated.

You do know that this appeal failed, right? If my fading gray matter is functioning properly, the only reason the E.T. Highway was resurrected is because every single one was moved far enough off the roadway as to no longer be on DOT property.

[Keystone]

I still don't understand why the parties involved in cases like this don't use a "I'll move a little this way and you move a little that way." approach or just ask the pre-existing cache owner if s/he would like the cache to become part of the new trail. I know that these ideas will not work every time (special locations, etc) but GS ought to emphasize compromise as a first choice over forced archiving or guideline bending.

That is between the land manager and the cache owners. Geocaching HQ was not involved in any way in that issue. It was not an official GeoTour.

 

As I stated before, in cases where I have seen Geocaching HQ get involved, fair compromises have been reached, including granting exceptions to the cache saturation guideline that I wouldn't otherwise feel comfortable granting. So there were new caches, the old caches stayed, for a higher total of caches for everyone to find. Everyone is happy. Because of this, there are no forum threads about these examples.