Jump to content

Caches in RV Parks


zookeepertx

Recommended Posts

I just had 3 caches not approved by the reviewer in my area, when there had been a cache there from mid-2012 to spring 2014. The same reviewer approved her cache as rejected my 3. They are located in an RV Park with, not just permission of the property manager, but encouragement from him! His little daughter loved seeing the cache and just the whole idea of caching. My caches did not use the name of the RV Park, did not have any agenda, require interaction with employees, require that you purchase anything at all, or charge admission. The reviewer considered mine to be commercial in nature, because the RV Park is a "for profit" location designed only for customer/residents of the park. However, this particular park has regular church service for anyone that wants to come, cookouts for the public, sometimes dances for the public.

 

My caches would be on the very outskirts of the Park, so there would be NO disturbance of residents. In fact, when the previous cache was there, a number of travellers that stayed in the park were cachers who hunted that one.

 

So, on the subject of caches being anywhere on commercial-type property, then shouldn't all LPCs be refused? They're on the parking lot of a business, which should be considered part of the business. If someone gets injured by a car or by falling in the parking lot, who are they going to sue? The business! So, apparently it's part of their commercial property!

 

I haven't replied to the reviewer's latest communication, because I don't know how much good it will do! I'm afraid they'll just decide I'm being argumentative and REALLY not want to approve them, then! So, I'm VERY disinclined to go to appeals, because then I'll probably NEVER get another cache approved! I THINK there's only 1 reviewer in this area, but am not positive.

 

I'm mostly annoyed because, I think these are pretty darn good hides!

 

Anyway, does anybody have any words of wisdom?

Link to comment

This thread is for discussing issues that DO go to Appeals. Would you like me to split your question into its own thread?

 

Anyways, feel free to exercise your appeal rights. As several reviewers have posted, we don't get upset when someone goes to Appeals. If we're right, it gets the problem off our desk. If we're wrong, we appreciate being corrected because it means a new cache gets published, and we like to publish caches.

Link to comment

This thread is for discussing issues that DO go to Appeals. Would you like me to split your question into its own thread?

 

Sure, I just got caught up in the different stories from various posters and stuck with it. Sorry about that.

 

Anyways, feel free to exercise your appeal rights. As several reviewers have posted, we don't get upset when someone goes to Appeals. If we're right, it gets the problem off our desk. If we're wrong, we appreciate being corrected because it means a new cache gets published, and we like to publish caches.

 

I'm just one of those people that can't seem to help thinking about ALL the possible what-ifs and worry too much about too many things. I've been trying to stop doing that for ... oh, about 55 years now, LOL!

Link to comment

I split this discussion off from the "Appeals" thread.

 

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

The earlier cache in the same RV Park was published earlier than the 2014 discussion. This is one reason why the guidelines say that the publication of any cache does not serve as precedent for any future cache submissions.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

I split this discussion off from the "Appeals" thread.

 

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

The earlier cache in the same RV Park was published earlier than the 2014 discussion. This is one reason why the guidelines say that the publication of any cache does not serve as precedent for any future cache submissions.

 

Okay, thanks for the clarification! Since the previous cache was published as recently as 2012, I didn't realize there had been a change in policy just since then.

 

It's just really discouraging, partly because I think these are pretty creative hides and also because the park manager (and his daughter) will be very disappointed. I wonder if the area that's outside the "camping area proper" would be feasible. Although, from my recollection, that part is sorely lacking in good hiding places. Maybe I'll scout it out and check with my reviewer on that area.

 

Thanks for explaining the new guideline to me!

Link to comment

I reread the guidelines prohibiting commercial geocaches. Assuming that your caches avoid the obvious trap of "advertising, marketing or promotion" (including business names, logos, and links), the main question is whether it "suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service."

 

So, can people find your caches without going inside the business, without interacting with employees, and without purchasing a product or service?

Link to comment

I reread the guidelines prohibiting commercial geocaches. Assuming that your caches avoid the obvious trap of "advertising, marketing or promotion" (including business names, logos, and links), the main question is whether it "suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service."

 

So, can people find your caches without going inside the business, without interacting with employees, and without purchasing a product or service?

 

Definitely without interacting with employees or purchasing anything. I guess the problem is with the phrase "inside a business". I had considered that to meant actually INSIDE a business - like in a building. I guess that, to the reviewer, it means (in this case) inside the boundary of the park. Which stinks, because, looking at GoogleMaps streetview just now, there is NO other decent place to put a cache nearby that's outside the "camping area" itself. That is, unless I just want to make another "micro/small hidden in the landscaping shrub" cache.

Link to comment
Keystone, Anyways, feel free to exercise your appeal rights. As several reviewers have posted, we don't get upset when someone goes to Appeals.

 

I'm VERY disinclined to go to appeals, because then I'll probably NEVER get another cache approved!

 

Your reviewer is a friendly, altruistic volunteer - really, unpaid, giving much time for love of the game :) This is not the profile of a revenge seeking, vindictive jerk.

 

Your next guideline compliant cache will be published, regardless of whether you appeal.

 

I suggest that you might take these to appeals. They strike me as *maybe* having a shot. Not a big shot, but a shot.

If they were in my review area, it wouldn't disturb me in the slightest that you'd appealed, and I wouldn't be terribly shocked if they got published, though i'd need clarification. It's by users asking staff that clarification happens.

 

If you do appeal, you might want to archive (delete) your Notes, and use Reviewer notes.

I'd further suggest you trim/delete the last half of what you wrote. Staff, like the reviewer, is interested in things that impact on the commercial guideline, not everything you can think of to say about the cache ;-)

Link to comment

Repeating part of my earlier post:

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business"

This is not a "new guideline" but rather the application of an existing guideline (commercial caches) to an edge case situation (RV Parks/commercial campgrounds).

Perhaps from a reviewer's point of view this is just a clarification of the "inside a business" guideline. From outside is sounds like guidelines creep and another example of a "secret" memo which I wouldn't have found out about except for someone coming to the forum to complain of his cache being denied.

 

At one time you could have caches inside of a business. Even ones where you interacted with employees. These were quite popular, but admittedly there were problems; sometime you may have felt being pressured to make a purchase or at least listen to a sales pitch. So I understand that Groundspeak changed the guideline to add the clause regarding going inside a business or interacting with employees. A lot of fun caches that I remember from the early days, like the one in a tattoo parlor, would no longer be allowed.

 

There a lots of properties that are used substantially as a commercial business but have areas that are publicly accessible where visitors are welcome even though there are not shopping. Caches get placed in outdoor malls, plazas in front of commercial office buildings, hotel rooftop gardens, business parks, private college campuses, etc. If all the property is placed off-limits just because there is a commercial aspect, does this mean that big box parking lots are now off-limit as well? You can't argue this is an "edge case" situation; I would expect this to be announced more broadly than a memo to the reviewers.

Link to comment
Perhaps from a reviewer's point of view this is just a clarification of the "inside a business" guideline. From outside is sounds like guidelines creep and another example of a "secret" memo which I wouldn't have found out about except for someone coming to the forum to complain of his cache being denied.

 

This is how it seems to me as well.

 

I really do not understand the reason for guidelines like this. Permission was enthusiastically given, no employee interaction is required, and the finder does not have to pay any fee. Seriously, you can't ask for a more perfect situation for placement of a cache than this. At the same time, it's funny how easy it is to get a cache published that's placed inside a commercial business parking lot. Sorry but i just don't understand this at all. :blink:

Link to comment
I guess the problem is with the phrase "inside a business". I had considered that to meant actually INSIDE a business - like in a building. I guess that, to the reviewer, it means (in this case) inside the boundary of the park.
It sounds like they're treating this RV park like other outdoor for-profit businesses, like amusement parks (much of Disneyland is "outdoors", but it's still "inside a business"), stadiums, and amphitheatres.

 

The difference between these places and the parking lots used for some urban caches is that parking lots are often outside the actual business.

Link to comment
Perhaps from a reviewer's point of view this is just a clarification of the "inside a business" guideline. From outside is sounds like guidelines creep and another example of a "secret" memo which I wouldn't have found out about except for someone coming to the forum to complain of his cache being denied.

 

This is how it seems to me as well.

 

I really do not understand the reason for guidelines like this. Permission was enthusiastically given, no employee interaction is required, and the finder does not have to pay any fee. Seriously, you can't ask for a more perfect situation for placement of a cache than this. At the same time, it's funny how easy it is to get a cache published that's placed inside a commercial business parking lot. Sorry but i just don't understand this at all. :blink:

 

That *does* sound like the cache would be worthy of an exception but where do you draw the line? Suppose "Permission was enthusiastically given, no employee interaction is required, and the finder does not have to pay any fee." but rather than in a pay-for-use camp ground the cache was in the parking lot of a car dealership? They'd also give permission enthusiastically, not require a fee for entering the parking lot and although no employee interaction would be required, that wouldn't stop a salesman from trying to initiate contact.

 

 

Link to comment

Inside a business was always assumed to mean indoors, so there was no confusion. Now the definition is changed to outside, but inside a RV park, being inside a business, but not including a business parking lot. I don't think they will ever stretch it to include business parking lots, as too many would get upset, and this would block many new people from seeing a geocache nearby on their map.

Link to comment

This thread is for discussing issues that DO go to Appeals. Would you like me to split your question into its own thread?

 

Anyways, feel free to exercise your appeal rights. As several reviewers have posted, we don't get upset when someone goes to Appeals. If we're right, it gets the problem off our desk. If we're wrong, we appreciate being corrected because it means a new cache gets published, and we like to publish caches.

 

I'm certainly glad to hear that.

 

Hearing stories about reviewers resigning or retiring due to a reversed decision above their heads is slightly disturbing.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
Your reviewer is a friendly, altruistic volunteer - really, unpaid, giving much time for love of the game :) This is not the profile of a revenge seeking, vindictive jerk.

Your next guideline compliant cache will be published, regardless of whether you appeal.

Thanks for that information, Palmetto. I always think too much and worry that people will react badly and then I'd just be crushed. (Somebody has to worry about this crap, LOL!)

 

Caches get placed in outdoor malls, plazas in front of commercial office buildings, hotel rooftop gardens, business parks, private college campuses, etc. If all the property is placed off-limits just because there is a commercial aspect, does this mean that big box parking lots are now off-limit as well?

That's one thing that confused me, tozainamboku. Where, exactly, does the business stop and the parking lot begin?

 

Permission was enthusiastically given, no employee interaction is required, and the finder does not have to pay any fee. Seriously, you can't ask for a more perfect situation for placement of a cache than this.

Yeah, that's what makes me sad, Mudfrog; the property manager was really looking forward to having another cache there.

 

but rather than in a pay-for-use camp ground the cache was in the parking lot of a car dealership? They'd also give permission enthusiastically, not require a fee for entering the parking lot and although no employee interaction would be required, that wouldn't stop a salesman from trying to initiate contact.

NYPaddleCacher - I can see where that could happen. Hmmmm

 

Is it reasonably possible to find these caches in broad daylight without being seen by anyone, such as a concerned camper who might call the police?

Hi Viajero Perdido - Nope, on 2 of the hides, cachers would be easily seen by campers. I doubt if they'd call police, though, but you never know, I guess.

 

Hearing stories about reviewers resigning or retiring due to a reversed decision above their heads is slightly disturbing.

4wheelin_fool - Yeah, that would make me very sad. That's part of the reason I was hesitating about taking it to appeal.

Link to comment

I went out today and scouted 2 new locations that are just outside the park itself to replace 2 of the original locations. And the 3rd original location can actually be accessed from the other side of the fence. So, I've posted another reviewer note, in hopes that the new locations will work and that they'll let the 3rd one be okay if I specifically say on the description for cachers NOT to enter the park, but hunt from the road behind the park.

 

I hope these changes will help, or I'll REALLY be sad. There are not a LOT of caches around this town, so I'm hoping to add to the "population" a bit.

 

Thanks for all of your input! I'll post back and let you know how it turns out.

Link to comment

Your reviewer is a friendly, altruistic volunteer - really, unpaid, giving much time for love of the game :) This is not the profile of a revenge seeking, vindictive jerk.

 

I beg to differ (on the friendly part).

 

ALL 3 of my new locations are OUTSIDE the business/occupied area of the park - one is completely outside the fence and can't even be REACHED from the park area; one is technically probably on park property, but outside the occupied area (out on the grassy area in front), and the 3rd is one of the original locations but can just as easily be found from the other side of the fence.

 

In reply to my Reviewer Note explaining these things, last night I got back (what I considered to be) a pretty terse, snippy response insisting that ALL 3 spots are inside the park and basically accusing me of having some kind of agenda!

 

That is NOT my intention! It's just a really pretty spot; they have a nice pond with a sprayer-thing in the middle and a cute bridge crossing part of the pond, a little gazebo, etc. It's just a nice, clean, accessible place in the midst of a bunch of nothing! I could not care LESS about "bringing people to this business"; I just thought it was an enjoyable location.

 

Feeling enthusiastic (before I received the reviewer's response), I just spent 2 entire afternoons driving around this town, trying to find other locations. It's tough, because almost everything in this town is either: commercial, private property, crappy neighborhoods or roadside wooded areas with no way to identify the owners! I finally found a few decent locations, one of which could be an AWESOME multi! Then I spent most of last evening mapping the coordinates to make sure to have .1 mile distance between things. (My poor old GPS screen is so faded that it's VERY hard to see.) I put a lot of work into these.

 

But now I feel like the last 2 days were a complete waste of time. I'm really disheartened and don't feel like doing it any more. I doubt I'll be trying to place any more caches after this. :-(

 

I feel like I've been nothing but respectful and polite in my communications with the reviewer. I certainly don't remember kicking his/her dog or insulting his/her ancestors or anything, so I don't know what's up! But I'm pretty upset about all of this.

 

***I know that part of this post isn't related to the "caches in RV parks" topic, but it stems from that situation so I hope I'm not in trouble***

Edited by zookeepertx
Link to comment

I read the new reviewer note and no venom dripped on me.

 

You might be reading more into the note than was intended. From your perspective, the second "no" was bad news. Reviewers sometimes need to deliver bad news, if there's no way to make the cache placement work out. That doesn't make the reviewer a bad person.

 

When we say "no" twice on the same issue, it's reasonable to expect that the second "no" will be more terse than the first "no."

 

If at any point you feel as though your reviewer has judged your cache wrongly under the guidelines, or is acting inappropriately, you can write an appeal message to Geocaching HQ. And then we're back to the thread from which this one was spun off!

Link to comment

I read the new reviewer note and no venom dripped on me.

 

You might be reading more into the note than was intended. From your perspective, the second "no" was bad news. Reviewers sometimes need to deliver bad news, if there's no way to make the cache placement work out. That doesn't make the reviewer a bad person.

 

When we say "no" twice on the same issue, it's reasonable to expect that the second "no" will be more terse than the first "no."

 

If at any point you feel as though your reviewer has judged your cache wrongly under the guidelines, or is acting inappropriately, you can write an appeal message to Geocaching HQ. And then we're back to the thread from which this one was spun off!

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply venom; I just thought it was a bit snarky.

 

Anyway - inside of an RV park, they're renting out individual spaces, so I initially thought caches on the outskirts (fenceline), not near any of those spaces, would be alright. But then, since I moved two of the locations OUTSIDE the fence, I thought THAT would be alright. Is there some certain distance from the park that one has to have the cache to make it pass review?

Link to comment

I know a cache in a campground. It been found 735 times. Its right out in the front lawn of the campground office. :ph34r: The owner came out and asked where I was from. She was really nice and sweet and love meeting 100's of cachers around the world. I told the owner that I camped in her campground back in the summer of 1989. Edited to add... there is two in that same campground... I didnt find the other one because I was short on time.

 

I know another cache thats under manager office window of a motel. :ph34r:

 

Edited to add more... I know another campground thats owned by geocachers and there is a cache on their property. I never found it, but the owner asked me to stop by someday.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

When we say "no" twice on the same issue, it's reasonable to expect that the second "no" will be more terse than the first "no."

 

I'm sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point, but I don't totally understand. I have to accept the "inside the RV Park" thing. But when the reviewer gave the first "no", I attempted to rectify the problem by putting the new locations OUTSIDE (admittedly near) the RV Park. So, I was trying to comply with/correct the stated problem; doesn't that qualify as a "new issue"?

 

REALLY, I'm not trying to be difficult; I just don't get the tone of the reviewer's note on that second "no". I TRIED to make the locations fit within the stated "NO RV Parks" guideline. Isn't that what communications with the reviewers is supposed to accomplish?

 

If the second "no" should be expected to be terse, what would I expect if I move the cache locations again - even farther from the RV Park - and submit them again, or, God forbid, file an appeal?

 

HONESTLY - I'm not meaning to be a troublemaker! I just felt like I was being scolded when I was trying to obey the rules. This RV Park is just in such nice little spot, I hoped I could adjust things and be within the guidelines. I'll give up on this. :(

Edited by zookeepertx
Link to comment

I'm sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point, but I don't totally understand. I have to accept the "inside the RV Park" thing. But when the reviewer gave the first "no", I attempted to rectify the problem by putting the new locations OUTSIDE (admittedly near) the RV Park. So, I was trying to comply with/correct the stated problem; doesn't that qualify as a "new issue"?

 

The green arrow indicates one of the cache locations that you claim is outside the RV park. The red pin is the park's business office, 60 feet away.

 

wqqTeNG.png

Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

No... I disagreed. Mall parking area are inside of the place of business. You dont do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office. No need to get so PC about it.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I think perhaps the park owner should have it explained to him that there are two reasons a cache on the park's property presents problems for Groundspeak, despite the explicit permission.

 

1.) Commercial guideline...drawing people to their business can definitely be seen as advertising.

 

2.) It's a bad idea because of the privacy intrusion for the other residents/campers. Just because the owner knows about it, doesn't mean that the residents would know about it, or approve of stangers in their midst, playing a game.

 

Even if the park owner himself registered with Groundspeak, and tried placing a cache on the park's property, it wouldn't be published (hopefully).

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

No... I disagreed. Mall parking area are inside of the place of business. You dont do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office. No need to get so PC about it.

 

I agree with SwineFlew. You are splitting hairs. I suspect most plaza/mall owners expect people use their lots for conducting business within the retail/office locations within the plaza.

Link to comment

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

I don't have an issue with this ruling.

 

But I'm curious ... how is this situation different from, say, a state or county park, where one may have to pay a fee in order to enter the park?

 

(And by "park", I mean "park" ... y'know, the places with the big old trees and walking trails and stuff like that. :) )

Link to comment

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

I don't have an issue with this ruling.

 

But I'm curious ... how is this situation different from, say, a state or county park, where one may have to pay a fee in order to enter the park?

 

(And by "park", I mean "park" ... y'know, the places with the big old trees and walking trails and stuff like that. :) )

Probably the for profit aspect of the rv park vs the non profit aspect the other.

Link to comment

A few questions regarding the "Campground Clarification"

1) What if the campground is a Non-Profit organization? Would that change the results? (I am a member of a non-profit camp ground, and have considered getting permission to place one on the property)

 

2) Most campground have a parking lot out front of the office where people making inquiries, or are registring can park. Would this part of the campground property be acceptable as it is no different than a mall parking lot?

 

3) What about a ski hill. While the land it is part of the buisness opperation, usualy the land is acturaly owned by the crown (in Canada, or in the USA, by the state). The ski hill is the land manager, not the owner.

 

4) I know that in the past there have been caches (virtual?) published inside amusment parks; I think one was in DisneyWorld. With this new clarification, could these be published today?

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

No... I disagreed. Mall parking area are inside of the place of business. You dont do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office. No need to get so PC about it.

 

I agree with SwineFlew. You are splitting hairs. I suspect most plaza/mall owners expect people use their lots for conducting business within the retail/office locations within the plaza.

I'm sorry to hear that the malls where you live charge money just to get a parking spot in the lot. That must stink at Christmas time when you need to go shopping a lot.

Link to comment

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

I don't have an issue with this ruling.

 

But I'm curious ... how is this situation different from, say, a state or county park, where one may have to pay a fee in order to enter the park?

 

(And by "park", I mean "park" ... y'know, the places with the big old trees and walking trails and stuff like that. :) )

 

Basically, because Groundspeak long ago decided to make an exception for government-run parks and recreation areas that charge a reasonable entrance fee. And yes, there are government-run parks where caches were denied, because the fees were considered excessive.

Link to comment

A few questions regarding the "Campground Clarification"

1) What if the campground is a Non-Profit organization? Would that change the results? (I am a member of a non-profit camp ground, and have considered getting permission to place one on the property)

 

2) Most campground have a parking lot out front of the office where people making inquiries, or are registring can park. Would this part of the campground property be acceptable as it is no different than a mall parking lot?

 

3) What about a ski hill. While the land it is part of the buisness opperation, usualy the land is acturaly owned by the crown (in Canada, or in the USA, by the state). The ski hill is the land manager, not the owner.

 

4) I know that in the past there have been caches (virtual?) published inside amusment parks; I think one was in DisneyWorld. With this new clarification, could these be published today?

 

1. The Guidelines make no distinction between for-profit businesses, and non-profits, as you can see in the "Solicitation and Commercial Content" section of the Guidelines.

 

2. A for-profit campground is essentially the same as a for-profit RV park. I'm sure there are more than a few caches out there in for-profit campgrounds. It's not always evident from the cache page.

 

3. It would depend on the specifics.

 

4. It's a for-profit business that charges an entrance fee. I don't understand why you think it might now be acceptable.

Link to comment

A few questions regarding the "Campground Clarification"

1) What if the campground is a Non-Profit organization? Would that change the results? (I am a member of a non-profit camp ground, and have considered getting permission to place one on the property)

 

2) Most campground have a parking lot out front of the office where people making inquiries, or are registring can park. Would this part of the campground property be acceptable as it is no different than a mall parking lot?

 

3) What about a ski hill. While the land it is part of the buisness opperation, usualy the land is acturaly owned by the crown (in Canada, or in the USA, by the state). The ski hill is the land manager, not the owner.

 

4) I know that in the past there have been caches (virtual?) published inside amusment parks; I think one was in DisneyWorld. With this new clarification, could these be published today?

 

1. The Guidelines make no distinction between for-profit businesses, and non-profits, as you can see in the "Solicitation and Commercial Content" section of the Guidelines.

 

2. A for-profit campground is essentially the same as a for-profit RV park. I'm sure there are more than a few caches out there in for-profit campgrounds. It's not always evident from the cache page.

 

3. It would depend on the specifics.

 

4. It's a for-profit business that charges an entrance fee. I don't understand why you think it might now be acceptable.

 

Before I start, I appoligise for changing the terminology. I aggree that a campground is the same thing as an RV park, and I used it interchangably in my questions.

 

1) If there is no destiction between Non-Profit and For-Profit, why do you and Keystone keep bringing up "for-profit" in your answers?

...All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

...

This is why I thought that maybe non-profit campground's were not covered by this "Clarification"

 

2) I don't understand the answer. I was talking about getting a new cache published that is located on campground property, but in the publicly accessable parking lot in front of the office (similar to a shopping mall parking lot); not in the campground.

 

3) OK, if I place any more caches at ski hills, I will ask my local reviewer befor hand.

 

4) As mentioned in the question, it was acceptable at some time in the far off past. I guess maybe this question is a little out dated, and no longer relevent. Forget I asked it.

Link to comment

I think perhaps the park owner should have it explained to him that there are two reasons a cache on the park's property presents problems for Groundspeak, despite the explicit permission.

 

1.) Commercial guideline...drawing people to their business can definitely be seen as advertising.

 

2.) It's a bad idea because of the privacy intrusion for the other residents/campers. Just because the owner knows about it, doesn't mean that the residents would know about it, or approve of stangers in their midst, playing a game.

 

Even if the park owner himself registered with Groundspeak, and tried placing a cache on the park's property, it wouldn't be published (hopefully).

 

B.

 

I looked at the map that Prime Reviewer posted then looked up the RV park in google maps so that I could see a street view. Assuming that the coordinates are good, it appears that the cache is located near a planting area next a driveway. Someone searching for the cache would never have to go past GZ to to where the business office is located 60 feet away and interact with any employees. The area where the campers park is well past the business office so it would be unlikely that geocachers would have any interaction with campers either unless the campers were entering or leaving the campground. If the reason for the cache not being published is due to the proximity of the business office and the cache then most urban caches would not be published.

Link to comment

1) If there is no destiction between Non-Profit and For-Profit, why do you and Keystone keep bringing up "for-profit" in your answers?

I can only answer for myself. It's mostly to emphasize that these are places of business, and partly out of habit, as at one time, we did make a distinction between for-profits and non-profits. We've both been doing this for a good while, and habits are hard to break. You shouldn't read any extra meaning into it.

Link to comment

I think perhaps the park owner should have it explained to him that there are two reasons a cache on the park's property presents problems for Groundspeak, despite the explicit permission.

 

1.) Commercial guideline...drawing people to their business can definitely be seen as advertising.

 

2.) It's a bad idea because of the privacy intrusion for the other residents/campers. Just because the owner knows about it, doesn't mean that the residents would know about it, or approve of stangers in their midst, playing a game.

 

Even if the park owner himself registered with Groundspeak, and tried placing a cache on the park's property, it wouldn't be published (hopefully).

 

B.

 

I looked at the map that Prime Reviewer posted then looked up the RV park in google maps so that I could see a street view. Assuming that the coordinates are good, it appears that the cache is located near a planting area next a driveway. Someone searching for the cache would never have to go past GZ to to where the business office is located 60 feet away and interact with any employees. The area where the campers park is well past the business office so it would be unlikely that geocachers would have any interaction with campers either unless the campers were entering or leaving the campground. If the reason for the cache not being published is due to the proximity of the business office and the cache then most urban caches would not be published.

 

So the fee tangent is not relevant to the latest location and we're back to splitting hairs.

Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

No... I disagreed. Mall parking area are inside of the place of business. You dont do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office. No need to get so PC about it.

 

I agree with SwineFlew. You are splitting hairs. I suspect most plaza/mall owners expect people use their lots for conducting business within the retail/office locations within the plaza.

I'm sorry to hear that the malls where you live charge money just to get a parking spot in the lot. That must stink at Christmas time when you need to go shopping a lot.

 

So the parking lot is not part of the business? Tell that to the business owner.

Link to comment

Geez, why can't you just find a very nice Walmart parking lot like everyone else? :rolleyes:

 

That's one thing I can't understand. We can hide them in mall parking lots, but not in an RV parking lot. Aren't they both "commercial"? At least in this case the CO took the step to get permission.

See post #4. Inside the mall = inside the business; not so for the parking lot. For an RV campground, the parking area IS the business. And, people are paying for the right to park overnight there with an expectation that random people won't be wandering around.

No... I disagreed. Mall parking area are inside of the place of business. You dont do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office. No need to get so PC about it.

 

I agree with SwineFlew. You are splitting hairs. I suspect most plaza/mall owners expect people use their lots for conducting business within the retail/office locations within the plaza.

I'm sorry to hear that the malls where you live charge money just to get a parking spot in the lot. That must stink at Christmas time when you need to go shopping a lot.

 

So the parking lot is not part of the business? Tell that to the business owner.

Yes and the mall security person. Or even law enforcement officers. And the news media.

 

Or even the tow truck driver.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I looked at the map that Prime Reviewer posted then looked up the RV park in google maps so that I could see a street view. Assuming that the coordinates are good, it appears that the cache is located near a planting area next a driveway. Someone searching for the cache would never have to go past GZ to to where the business office is located 60 feet away and interact with any employees. The area where the campers park is well past the business office so it would be unlikely that geocachers would have any interaction with campers either unless the campers were entering or leaving the campground. If the reason for the cache not being published is due to the proximity of the business office and the cache then most urban caches would not be published.

 

Exactly what I was thinking! That's why I chose that spot! And, in fact, the office is on the backside of the large building, facing directly opposite from the site I chose, so the location wouldn't even possibly be visible from the office, or, really, from the majority of the campsites. (BTW, that building is where they host church services, dances and cookouts for the general public; anybody is welcome. Pretty neat!)

 

2) I don't understand the answer. I was talking about getting a new cache published that is located on campground property, but in the publicly accessable parking lot in front of the office (similar to a shopping mall parking lot); not in the campground.

You don't do campground business in the parking lot, you do it in the office.

 

Yes! Anybody has access to this spot, whether they're campers or not! Not only would you not have to enter the campground, but even people going up the driveway probably wouldn't even notice someone in this spot.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

As for the second "new" location I had chosen, it IS outside the fence that goes around the campground. I made a screenshot of the area, but I can't figure out how to put it in here. But, in the pic, the campground is to the right (East), the cache location would be to the left (West) and there's a line going North-South that is a tall chain link fence. There's a drive in the pic that leaves the campground in that direction, but is not actually used; the gate is locked.

 

Anyway, not knowing who I'm messaging with and only having text to judge peoples' feelings, I don't know if I should try to place any more caches. It makes me sad, because one of the other areas I've looked at is AWESOME! I scouted around for quite a while, saying to myself, "there has GOT to be a cache here! It's perfect!" I dunno... :(

Edited by zookeepertx
Link to comment

All of a commercial campground/ RV Park property is considered being "inside a business" because the business is renting out camping spots. Geocaching HQ clarified their position on this issue earlier in 2014 in a discussion with the volunteer cache reviewers. It changed my own thinking on the issue, and apparently your reviewer got the memo as well.

 

I don't have an issue with this ruling.

 

But I'm curious ... how is this situation different from, say, a state or county park, where one may have to pay a fee in order to enter the park?

 

(And by "park", I mean "park" ... y'know, the places with the big old trees and walking trails and stuff like that. :) )

 

Basically, because Groundspeak long ago decided to make an exception for government-run parks and recreation areas that charge a reasonable entrance fee. And yes, there are government-run parks where caches were denied, because the fees were considered excessive.

 

Maybe they should rethink their decision from "long ago" then. So if someone who charges fees is not associated with "the Gubmint", be it local, State or Federal, the cache is a no-go? I always sort of thought those fees I paid to enter a State Park were a "for profit" situation. :unsure:

Link to comment

So if someone who charges fees is not associated with "the Gubmint", be it local, State or Federal, the cache is a no-go?

Yes, just like it's been for the last 10+ years.

 

I always sort of thought those fees I paid to enter a State Park were a "for profit" situation. :unsure:

In my state, the fees to enter and/or camp at state parks only cover about half the cost of maintaining the parks. So, no, they are not "for-profit".

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...