Caches in RV Parks

[+niraD]

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)

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.

I'm confused. The no solicitation subsection makes no distinction between for-profit business and non-profit organizations. And the parts of the no commercial content subsection that focus on advertising, links, and logos make no distinction between for-profit business and non-profit organizations.

 

But the parts of the no commercial content subsection that focus on going inside, interacting, purchasing, or mentioning names do focus on for-profit businesses, with no mention of non-profit organizations.

 

So what is really being enforced? Are government facilities the only facilities that can be used? Are non-profit (but non-government) organizations off limits, even if the cache complies with the stated restrictions on solicitation, advertising, links, and logos, and the stated restrictions on going inside of, interacting with, purchasing from, or mentioning names of businesses?

[+Prime Reviewer]

So what is really being enforced? Are government facilities the only facilities that can be used? Are non-profit (but non-government) organizations off limits, even if the cache complies with the stated restrictions on solicitation, advertising, links, and logos, and the stated restrictions on going inside of, interacting with, purchasing from, or mentioning names of businesses?

The section, as a whole, applies to businesses, be they "for" or "non" profit, charities, and social and political organizations.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

May true in recent years, but 10+ seems an exaggeration.

 

When the decision to allow some fees was made, cache were often allowed in zoos, botanic gardens, and some museums. These are not always run by the government. It is common for a non-profit organization to run these places and collect fees. Many reviewers continued to allow cache in such places.

 

Recently I've noticed that there are no longer caches in the Los Angeles zoo (there is one in the parking lot). In LA the zoo is city property, so it seems that, government or not, caches are no longer permitted.

 

Once again any specific changes in the guidelines that might be responsible for the change aren't exactly obvious. Was another memo from Groundspeak to reviewers that the rest of us don't know about? Forum posts like this seem to be the only way the general community finds out there is some new interpretation (or if there was a change made in the guideline, just how it will be interpreted).

 

I thank the reviewers who have posted in this thread, although their responses seem a little glib. They are after all just doing what Groundspeak told them. So long as Groundspeak refuses to come to forum and present the rationale behind changes in guidelines interpretation and so long as they continue to communicate these changes in "secret" memos to the reviewers that are not shared with the community, there will be people complaining about hair splitting.

[+Prime Reviewer]

May true in recent years, but 10+ seems an exaggeration.

It's not. The language was first put in over 10 years ago (as an Internet Archive search shows). The only real difference is that, as has already been noted in this thread, non-profits are treated the same as for-profit businesses.

 

When the decision to allow some fees was made, cache were often allowed in zoos, botanic gardens, and some museums. These are not always run by the government. It is common for a non-profit organization to run these places and collect fees. Many reviewers continued to allow cache in such places.

 

Recently I've noticed that there are no longer caches in the Los Angeles zoo (there is one in the parking lot). In LA the zoo is city property, so it seems that, government or not, caches are no longer permitted.

A lack of submissions in the zoo, is an indication of a lack of submissions in the zoo. It doesn't necessarily mean they're banned. Ask the local reviewer about it, if you really want to know.

[+tozainamboku]

May true in recent years, but 10+ seems an exaggeration.

It's not. The language was first put in over 10 years ago (as an Internet Archive search shows). The only real difference is that, as has already been noted in this thread, non-profits are treated the same as for-profit businesses.

The phrase dealing with going inside and purchasing a product or service may have been added 10 years ago. And as far as I can recall it has never distinguished between profit, non-profit, or government. What has change is interpretation. Maybe it is due to a different reviewer with a different opinion, or perhaps the reviewer changed his mind. Or maybe Groundspeak sent out a memo

 

All I know is 10 years ago caches were being published in zoos, botanic gardens, and a few other place that had an entry fee collected by a non-profit organization. It could be that caches are still published in places like these, though you've seen to indicate that government run parks are treated differently than some public space operated by a non-profit. You also have indicated that there is some "wow" requirement where reviewers judge if the fee is reasonable.

When the decision to allow some fees was made, cache were often allowed in zoos, botanic gardens, and some museums. These are not always run by the government. It is common for a non-profit organization to run these places and collect fees. Many reviewers continued to allow cache in such places.

 

Recently I've noticed that there are no longer caches in the Los Angeles zoo (there is one in the parking lot). In LA the zoo is city property, so it seems that, government or not, caches are no longer permitted.

A lack of submissions in the zoo, is an indication of a lack of submissions in the zoo. It doesn't necessarily mean they're banned. Ask the local reviewer about it, if you really want to know.

How would I know if there is a lack of submission of zoo caches? I only know there used to be several caches and overtime they were all archived and no new caches published. Sure the I can ask my local reviewer for his/her interpretation of guidelines. He/she may choose to share it with me, or I may just be told to submit a cache a wait to see what happens.

 

In any case, even if there are submissions being denied, and given that the zoo is run by the city, it was not a good example for discussing the commercial guidelines. There are many other reasons why caches may not have been published at the zoo in recent years.

[+Prime Reviewer]

The phrase dealing with going inside and purchasing a product or service may have been added 10 years ago. And as far as I can recall it has never distinguished between profit, non-profit, or government. What has change is interpretation. Maybe it is due to a different reviewer with a different opinion, or perhaps the reviewer changed his mind. Or maybe Groundspeak sent out a memo

 

All I know is 10 years ago caches were being published in zoos, botanic gardens, and a few other place that had an entry fee collected by a non-profit organization. It could be that caches are still published in places like these, though you've seen to indicate that government run parks are treated differently than some public space operated by a non-profit. You also have indicated that there is some "wow" requirement where reviewers judge if the fee is reasonable.

It's already been discussed several times that non-profits were at one time treated separately from for-profit businesses.

 

It was Groundspeak that made the final call on the city park that cost you $30 just to get in the gate. Excessive park fees can both discourage potential finders, and also impact the frequency of owner maintenance. In my 10 years of reviewing, it's the only municipal park that's ever been denied for this reason, so it's very much an outlier.

 

How would I know if there is a lack of submission of zoo caches?

Exactly. If you want to know if cache are allowed in the LA Zoo, just email the reviewer.

[+tozainamboku]

The phrase dealing with going inside and purchasing a product or service may have been added 10 years ago. And as far as I can recall it has never distinguished between profit, non-profit, or government. What has change is interpretation. Maybe it is due to a different reviewer with a different opinion, or perhaps the reviewer changed his mind. Or maybe Groundspeak sent out a memo

 

All I know is 10 years ago caches were being published in zoos, botanic gardens, and a few other place that had an entry fee collected by a non-profit organization. It could be that caches are still published in places like these, though you've seen to indicate that government run parks are treated differently than some public space operated by a non-profit. You also have indicated that there is some "wow" requirement where reviewers judge if the fee is reasonable.

It's already been discussed several times that non-profits were at one time treated separately from for-profit businesses.

 

It was Groundspeak that made the final call on the city park that cost you $30 just to get in the gate. Excessive park fees can both discourage potential finders, and also impact the frequency of owner maintenance. In my 10 years of reviewing, it's the only municipal park that's ever been denied for this reason, so it's very much an outlier.

 

How would I know if there is a lack of submission of zoo caches?

Exactly. If you want to know if cache are allowed in the LA Zoo, just email the reviewer.

Forget the LA zoo (I'm sorry I brought it up as it is off topic to the point I was trying to make).

 

The issue is what is government. There are many places where a city or state government will create an unelected agency to run the zoo, museum, etc. That agency will get no budget from the taxpayer. Instead they create a non-profit to charge fees and raise funds. Of course there is still government oversight, usually in form of appointing the board and sometimes in approving the fees.

 

Not clear to me if reviewers would view this a a government fee or not. It makes little sense to me (and IMO, another example of hair splitting) to allow caches in a zoo that is run by the city vs a zoo run by an non profit zoologiccal society. My guess is that a cacher would not know who the fees are going to. There are zoos that are run for profit as well. It may just be easier to say no zoos, museums, etc. that charge a fee.

 

With regard to municipal parks with exorbitant fees, I hear you. The cases I've seen involve weekend entrance fees. Both have caches. One is a county park that is free during the week but has a car entrance fee on weekends and holidays (less than $30, but if I recall more than $10). No parking is available within a reasonable walking distance, but you can walk in if you are willing to park far away. The other was a municipal park. Again free on weekdays but closed to anyone not a resident of the city on weekends and holidays. The park was patrolled on weekends and they wrote expensive tickets if you didn't have proof of residency. High fee parks are generally using fees to control crowds and the fee structure may allow cachers who are willing to search on weekdays to do so with no fee. I've no problem with reviewers making the "wow" judgement call if they are willing, just so long as they consider the whole fee structure and not just the worst case.

[+zookeepertx]

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.

 

Sorry to resurrect a previous thread, but can anyone tell me about what part of 2014 decision was made?

 

Jenny

[+AlfT & Co]

I can certainly understand to OPs feelings. However not I am sure the Reviewer has a reason for declining.

Having said that and reading all the replies, I note that one Reviewer has suggested at least twice that the OP take it further up the ladder and go to appeals.

I know the OP is reluctant to do so out of fear of upsetting the apple cart. But once again I am sure the reviewer that has posted here has reasons for suggesting appeal.

 

I would go ahead and try the appeal process, there may be something the original reviewer is not happy accepting that the appeal process will allow the placements.

 

I hope this all makes sense and wish the OP the best of luck.

[+zookeepertx]

I can certainly understand to OPs feelings. However not I am sure the Reviewer has a reason for declining.

Having said that and reading all the replies, I note that one Reviewer has suggested at least twice that the OP take it further up the ladder and go to appeals.

I know the OP is reluctant to do so out of fear of upsetting the apple cart. But once again I am sure the reviewer that has posted here has reasons for suggesting appeal.

 

I would go ahead and try the appeal process, there may be something the original reviewer is not happy accepting that the appeal process will allow the placements.

 

I hope this all makes sense and wish the OP the best of luck.

 

Hi alft! OP here. I haven't gone to appeals for, as you say, fear of upsetting the apple cart. I do NOT handle anything that even resembles confrontation well at all! I'm just a big chicken.

 

I didn't understand the post from Keystone saying: "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." "

 

No, I didn't expect the 2nd "no" to be more terse! I thought the purpose of the interaction with the reviewer is to let me know of issues that might exist so I can correct them, attempting to achieve compliance, and then re-submit the cache. I had attempted to correct things by moving the locations outside the occupied part of the park and was just re-submitting. So, since I didn't think it WAS the "same issue" I didn't see any reason for me to be "scolded"!

 

And then, Prime Reviewer posted a "map" of one of my proposed (second) locations, saying "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."

 

A location that I *CLAIM* is outside the park! As far as I'm concerned, that's calling me a liar and I was pretty offended!

Besides, online maps (that aren't aerial views) are notoriously a bit "iffy" on borders of things like parks and even lakes!

 

I haven't had time to do much caching for quite a while but was hoping to get back into it. But since this issue, I just don't know. I've been trying to talk myself into working up that multi location, but am afraid to put much effort into it at this point. I'm not sure; I may be done.

 

Anyhow, thanks for the support. I'll try to see if I can work up some enthusiasm again.

 

Jenny