Jump to content

Hiking Events


HikingSeal

Recommended Posts

The guidelines from April 2005 mention group cache hunts as event activities (not the sole).

 

Event stacking was not forbidden back then ....

 

2005 Guideline wording (from the wayback machine):

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Well, I have been aware of that, but the event stacking rule as used now also applied to events which do not belong together.

Link to comment

The guidelines from April 2005 mention group cache hunts as event activities (not the sole).

 

Event stacking was not forbidden back then ....

 

2005 Guideline wording (from the wayback machine):

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Well, I have been aware of that, but the event stacking rule as used now also applied to events which do not belong together.

We're not talking about stacking, we're talking about hiking.

Link to comment
I see just a way for a better event guideline and I explained that already.

No, your better way is that the guidelines be rolled back to what you want.

 

That's not true, but so far noone has managed to explain why one cannot have events such as

 

start time: 9:00

 

end time: 14:00

 

We meet starting from 9:00 at the parking lot and head off for a hike at 9:30. We will be back by 14:00.

Who is hurted by putting 14:00 as end time of the event? Who is hurt by including the hike as part of the event

(not requiring it for attended logs!)?

 

The group caching argument can't be the key argument - otherwise a restaurant event in a cache dense area where there are 20 caches within close vicinity of the restaurant

should not be published while a hiking event in an area where there is probably no or at most one cache nearby should be published in any case.

 

Like they do not need an automatic checker for when the commercial guideline is violated, it could also work for the group cache hunt.

Link to comment
I see just a way for a better event guideline and I explained that already.

No, your better way is that the guidelines be rolled back to what you want.

 

That's not true, but so far noone has managed to explain why one cannot have events such as

 

start time: 9:00

 

end time: 14:00

 

We meet starting from 9:00 at the parking lot and head off for a hike at 9:30. We will be back by 14:00.

Who is hurted by putting 14:00 as end time of the event? Who is hurt by including the hike as part of the event

(not requiring it for attended logs!)?

 

The group caching argument can't be the key argument - otherwise a restaurant event in a cache dense area where there are 20 caches within close vicinity of the restaurant

should not be published while a hiking event in an area where there is probably no or at most one cache nearby should be published in any case.

 

Like they do not need an automatic checker for when the commercial guideline is violated, it could also work for the group cache hunt.

FULL FLIPPIN' CIRCLE.

 

This is PRECISELY what I've said you can do. What you should do. How your friends should work within the guideline. Double-u Tee Eff? :blink:

Link to comment

This is PRECISELY what I've said you can do. What you should do. How your friends should work within the guideline. Double-u Tee Eff? :blink:

 

The problem is just that it is not within the guidelines.

They require to list 9:30 as end of the event (I mean the official Groundspeak event).

 

BTW: I wonder why you so often refer to my friends.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

This is PRECISELY what I've said you can do. What you should do. How your friends should work within the guideline. Double-u Tee Eff? :blink:

 

The problem is just that it is not within the guidelines.

They require to list 9:30 as end of the event (I mean the official Groundspeak event).

 

BTW: I wonder why you so often refer to my friends.

NO THEY DON'T!

 

I refer to your friends, because they are the ones who apparently put on events...since you do not, have not, will not.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

NO THEY DON'T!

 

Proof?

 

As the guidelines are formulated, there appears to be no room for interpretation and you appear to be the only one in this thread who believes that using 4:00 as end time of the event would work.

 

I refer to your friends, because they are the ones who apparently put on events...since you do not, have not, will not.

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

NO THEY DON'T!

 

Proof?

 

As the guidelines are formulated, there appears to be no room for interpretation and you appear to be the only one in this thread who believes that using 4:00 as end time of the event would work.

 

I refer to your friends, because they are the ones who apparently put on events...since you do not, have not, will not.

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

 

Then why do you want to socialize with them?

Link to comment

NO THEY DON'T!

 

Proof?

 

As the guidelines are formulated, there appears to be no room for interpretation and you appear to be the only one in this thread who believes that using 4:00 as end time of the event would work.

Nope.

You've either skipped or ignored posts that specifically provide example of events that describe exactly what you're looking for. But I know what you're doing - you're arguing that even if the listing says "the event takes place 12:00-12:30 for lunch, but feel free to meet at 9am to hike with the group, and come to dinner at 5:30 at restaurant X", then 9am-5:30pm doesn't count as the event length. At that point you're absolutely splitting hairs.

 

Yes, the Event Listing states the "attendable" event may take place between a smaller period of time, at one location, than the stretch of all the other optional activities that may be taking place at other times and other locations. The 'spirit' of this event would be 9am to 5:30pm encompassing the hike and the lunch. The 'letter' of the event says the Event Listing to be attended is socializing at 12:00pm-12:30pm at the posted coordinates, with the other activities not required to log "attended".

 

If you cannot like that because you can't make the entire 9am-5:30pm period "attendable", then you are arguing in circles. Is it about the "attended" log? Or is it about the hike? If it's about the hike, then it doesn't matter if the Event Listing is 12-12:30 and the other activities can still be enjoyed. If somehow this issue makes events overall less 'desirable' for you to attend - then once again, is it about your "attended" log? Or is it about you just freaking having fun and enjoying the activities you want to enjoy?

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

 

Then why do you want to socialize with them?

 

Why not? There are many people I enjoy to talk to who are not my friends. Most of the geocachers I know I do not know well enough to make them eligible for being called friend.

Link to comment

 

You've either skipped or ignored posts that specifically provide example of events that describe exactly what you're looking for. But I know what you're doing - you're arguing that even if the listing says "the event takes place 12:00-12:30 for lunch, but feel free to meet at 9am to hike with the group, and come to dinner at 5:30 at restaurant X", then 9am-5:30pm doesn't count as the event length. At that point you're absolutely splitting hairs.

 

YOu might call it splitting hairs, but in any case NeverSummer seems to be the only one here who thinks that

writing

 

"Start of event: 9:00

End of Event;: 14:00

 

We meet starting from 9:00 at the parking lot and leave at 9:30 for a hike and will return back to the starting point by 14:00"

 

will be published. YOur setup with the lunch break is different from that. I have no doubt that what you suggest would get published.

But I do not think that the setup above (exactly like that) will lead to a publishable event.

 

If you cannot like that because you can't make the entire 9am-5:30pm period "attendable", then you are arguing in circles. Is it about the "attended" log? Or is it about the hike?

 

It's not about being attendable. It's about the offer that one can make for an official geocache. If the hike cannot be part of the offer, then what remains is a pretty lame offer in my opinion that I would feel ashamed to offer.

Link to comment

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

 

Then why do you want to socialize with them?

 

Why not? There are many people I enjoy to talk to who are not my friends. Most of the geocachers I know I do not know well enough to make them eligible for being called friend.

 

Yeah, it's hard to make friends when you can't stand in one spot for long enough to talk to someone.

Link to comment

Yeah, it's hard to make friends when you can't stand in one spot for long enough to talk to someone.

 

Don't worry: I also referred to people to whom I have talked a lot and at several occasions.

To some extent of course once again cultural differences are involved (apart from the fact that the facebook generation also around here

has a different idea of what makes someone a friend). Friendship is something going deeper and not staying at the surface. With friends I talk about topics I never ever

would take with most cachers and which are anyway not topics for geocaching events. The number of geocachers with whom I have a bond of mutual affection is quite small, but it's not necessary to have such a bond to socialize with someone.

 

BTW: Walking does indeed make my ruined joints feel much better than standing around or sitting sandwiched between many people and with almost no room to move.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The guidelines from April 2005 mention group cache hunts as event activities (not the sole).

 

Event stacking was not forbidden back then ....

 

2005 Guideline wording (from the wayback machine):

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Well, I have been aware of that...

Of course you were ;)

Link to comment

 

Of course you were ;)

 

As I have cited the guideline from 2005, I have of course read it carefully before doing so. My mistake was just that I had something different in mind when I wrote that event stacking was not forbidden back then. In any case, event stacking has not been the slightest issue in 2005 in my area. It was still the time when events took place for many hours and were rare and something special.

 

Scenarios like having a mega event in one location and ending up with problems to get a normal event published in the same city not far from the mega event location and at the same day, but in no relation to the mega event at all have not been around back in 2005 - so there was not need to deal with them.

Link to comment

The guidelines from April 2005 mention group cache hunts as event activities (not the sole).

 

Event stacking was not forbidden back then ....

 

2005 Guideline wording (from the wayback machine):

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Well, I have been aware of that, but the event stacking rule as used now also applied to events which do not belong together.

We're not talking about stacking, we're talking about hiking.

 

Over in another forum I asked if the new guidelines would allow for people to have sex at an event. Apparently it's okay as long as it takes place at a specific location for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Link to comment

NO THEY DON'T!

 

Proof?

 

As the guidelines are formulated, there appears to be no room for interpretation and you appear to be the only one in this thread who believes that using 4:00 as end time of the event would work.

Nope. YOU prove to ME that you can't.

 

We've shown here, and in the other thread, the "proof" you're looking for.

 

It's time for you to put your desires to action, cezanne.

 

I refer to your friends, because they are the ones who apparently put on events...since you do not, have not, will not.

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

Oh good lord. Move on, you're trolling again.

Link to comment

 

Why should the fact that someone organizes an event turn them into my friend? I'm not belonging to the facebook generation with huge number of "friends".

 

Then why do you want to socialize with them?

 

Why not? There are many people I enjoy to talk to who are not my friends. Most of the geocachers I know I do not know well enough to make them eligible for being called friend.

01100010 01100101 01100011 01100001 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00101110 00100000 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100110 01110010 01101001 01100101 01101110 01100100 01110011 00101110 00100000 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01100101 01101101 01101111 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 01111001 01101111 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101101 01101101 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110011 01100001 01100100 01101110 01100101 01110011 01110011 00101110

Link to comment

 

You've either skipped or ignored posts that specifically provide example of events that describe exactly what you're looking for. But I know what you're doing - you're arguing that even if the listing says "the event takes place 12:00-12:30 for lunch, but feel free to meet at 9am to hike with the group, and come to dinner at 5:30 at restaurant X", then 9am-5:30pm doesn't count as the event length. At that point you're absolutely splitting hairs.

 

YOu might call it splitting hairs, but in any case NeverSummer seems to be the only one here who thinks that

writing

 

"Start of event: 9:00

End of Event;: 14:00

 

We meet starting from 9:00 at the parking lot and leave at 9:30 for a hike and will return back to the starting point by 14:00"

 

will be published. YOur setup with the lunch break is different from that. I have no doubt that what you suggest would get published.

But I do not think that the setup above (exactly like that) will lead to a publishable event.

 

If you cannot like that because you can't make the entire 9am-5:30pm period "attendable", then you are arguing in circles. Is it about the "attended" log? Or is it about the hike?

 

It's not about being attendable. It's about the offer that one can make for an official geocache. If the hike cannot be part of the offer, then what remains is a pretty lame offer in my opinion that I would feel ashamed to offer.

I am not the only one, cezanne.

 

And please, please just put your worry to rest by posting the event you want to have.

 

If it doesn't get published, talk to the Reviewer and/or TPTB (appeals@Groundspeak.com) to find out how to make it work.

 

Right now, I see NOTHING that prevents this interpretation of the guidelines which would allow the above example to be published.

Link to comment

The guidelines from April 2005 mention group cache hunts as event activities (not the sole).

 

Event stacking was not forbidden back then ....

 

2005 Guideline wording (from the wayback machine):

 

In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Well, I have been aware of that, but the event stacking rule as used now also applied to events which do not belong together.

We're not talking about stacking, we're talking about hiking.

 

Over in another forum I asked if the new guidelines would allow for people to have sex at an event. Apparently it's okay as long as it takes place at a specific location for a minimum of 30 minutes.

 

I think it's only reasonable to designate a space for this. Happily, the guidelines allow us to specify coordinates for additional event activities!

Link to comment

My email to Appeals:

· Mar 6 2015, 02:42 PM

 

The debate is hot, and Moderators and Reviewers have chimed in and disappeared.

 

It is my understanding that one could still get an event published with the new 30-minute minimum requirement if it were boiled down to this:

 

"Come to my event.

9:00am-2:00pm

We will depart the coordinates for a hike at 9:30am."

 

Would this event be publishable? Why or why not?

 

It appears to me that the event meets all guidelines, as it would have coordinates, would have start and end time, and meets the 30-minute minimum at the stated coordinates.

 

Thank you for helping us understand the new guidelines, and whether or not a "likable style" of Event Cache will still be possible under the clarified guideline.

 

Sincerely,

Joel

 

That, cezanne, is how you put things to rest. :anibad: (Why am I doing your work for you? Because I care!)

Link to comment

For others (closer to the Lilypad), moving events were rarely, if ever (and I mean a tiny, itsy-bitsy sliver of a percentage) published.

Not true! For the last couple of years there has been a series of events (for a while the CO was trying to do monthly, but dropped to quarterly events) published here in the Seattle area (i.e.. Lilypad-land) that were bicycle events: cachers meeting to ride bikes along a bike trail. There are always some caches along said trail, but that wasn't the purpose of the ride (many attendee's had already found many if not all the caches). These can no longer be listed on GC.com under the new rules. The 'workaround' doesn't make the moving activity part of the event, no matter how often you claim it does. It's still "after" the event, or "outside" of the event - however you put it, it's not part of the event. And that's what some of us don't like. Can we live with it, yes. Like it, no. Hence the discussion.

Can you post GC codes? There might be a case here which is better explained with context.

 

In the era of the guidelines cezanne was discussing (around 2005), I don't recall seeing any events that were 100% "moving" in Portland. I'm sure--positive, in fact--that I missed some which were "moving", but a full case that does not make.

 

Again, this comes back to Reviewers taking liberties with listing publication, and owners taking liberties with the guidelines according to Groundspeak. They have decided to clarify and ban and sadden via this update to the guidelines, which are more clearly interpreted by Reviewers and owners--thus putting the Event Cache train back on Groundspeak's tracks.

Here's the CO's list of events: Ride Bikes!

Link to comment

For the last couple of years there has been a series of events (for a while the CO was trying to do monthly, but dropped to quarterly events) published here in the Seattle area (i.e.. Lilypad-land) that were bicycle events: cachers meeting to ride bikes along a bike trail. There are always some caches along said trail, but that wasn't the purpose of the ride (many attendee's had already found many if not all the caches). These can no longer be listed on GC.com under the new rules.

Have you tried? Or are you assuming?

 

The 'workaround' doesn't make the moving activity part of the event, no matter how often you claim it does. It's still "after" the event, or "outside" of the event - however you put it, it's not part of the event. And that's what some of us don't like. Can we live with it, yes. Like it, no. Hence the discussion.

That is exactly what we're saying, yes. It's not THE event, but it can be listed on the page as a supplementary activity. Even if you said the bike ride will be 3 hours long, but the Event takes place for an hour at the trailhead. Whatever. Doesn't matter. The event is the hour. And you invite people for the bike ride after. Do you know that this event will not be published by YOUR reviewer? If not, then don't make claims until you know for a fact. If you don't like it, appeal their decision and defend why you think it should be published. That is your right and ability as the Event Listing creator.

I don't know why you are arguing - you are saying the same thing as I am: the hike is NOT part of the event. Under the new rules I get that. But that is the whole objection to the new rules, you can NO LONGER list events like those. Can't we express opinions here any more with out getting slapped down with the "that's the way it is, if you don't like it, shut up and deal with it" line?

Link to comment

All irrelevant. Since you've joined the game, you've never hosted an event. This only means you'll bat 1000 at the rate you're going. If that stat suits you, go for it!

So only event hosts can make comments about event rules? How about the participants is those events? I've not hosted a hiking event, but I've been on them and enjoyed them (you even linked one I did earlier in this thread* - interestingly, by the CO that started this thread).

 

 

*Side Comments: I'm not local to the CO, I just happened to be in town at the right time. And that's one of the reasons I'm not happy about the rule change, it's hard to find out about (non-GC) events by cachers that are set up on local pages, as out-of-towners don't know about those sites. But when they are (were?) listed on GC.com I could see them and join in. I admit, I'd probable go even if it wasn't a hike event just to meet the locals, but I made sure to get to this one because it was a hike in an area "new" to me.

Link to comment

But that's the point of your argument: 'We don't like that we can't list a hike as the primary event. (Even though we can still do the hike and even list it as a supplementary activity to the hike)'

What is your proposed solution?

Nothing is being proposed. Just ranting and raving and huffing and puffing about listing content. That's why this is still going on.

Link to comment

That, cezanne, is how you put things to rest. :anibad: (Why am I doing your work for you? Because I care!)

 

Thank you for writing the mail - I appreciate it as your chances to get a helpful reply

are certainly better than mine. I do not agree however that you did my work.

 

While workarounds exist, it does not change the fact that lots of events that have taken place in previous years will not take place again.

 

Here is one example

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4XP5J_klar-schaff-ich-das-version-2014?guid=042867ff-5a4c-464d-9bd0-1c4d33af5be7

(the 2014 edition - there have been previous events of the same type)

I'm not in the shape for such an event, still I regret that the diversity of events got more and more cut down (yes, I know that such an event would not have been published in 2014 in North America, probably never due to the circumstances). The existence of that event certainly has no hurt anyone but brought happyness to the participants.

 

A meet and greet event at the end of this long distance hike simply does not fit to the character of such an event and for such events there does not exist a workaround as the area does not allow for an event location which is 20km in the nowhere so that the participants would have to cover 42km to reach it and get back. So what happens is that more and more events with an active component disappear even though they could theoretically turned into meet and greets (not the example above due to the link to an organized hike).

 

Here is another example

This has been the last event of a series of full moon hiking events

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC43EVG_howling-wolf-v-special-edition?guid=6dde80b7-0f29-4db6-835a-f60d773bc898

The previous editions could take place without restrictions - for this version there already have been debates and the meeting in the inn at the trailhead had to be added - however at that time without providing start and end time.

2013 was the last edition.

 

I observed a pattern of events that have taken place over several years and then suddenly stopped typically after the last edition had to take place in a different way than intended. The event hosts there had to arrange with the version suggested by the reviewer and they did so to rescue the already planned events. Very often they are so frustrated however that in the year thereafter they decide not to continue.

 

Most probably the same fate will happen to the ice skating event I mentioned. While the event might have been overrated in earlier years, 1/1 does really not fit to the spirit of the event. I prefer to have someone get awarded a higher rating even if/she did not take part in the activity than those taking part in the activity ending up with 1/1. I normally try to keep the number of T=1* caches I visit below a certain number as I would like to see whether I could manage to rise my terrain average in Austria over 2.0 despite my handicaps and without not logging some caches I have visited.

 

I could have provided other examples for events that have become victims of the many changes of the event guidelines.

 

The reason why I attend so few events is not only that I do not like large events, but also that so few events with an active part take place in my own area. Most are events in restaurants or silly pi day etc events. The organizers of such events are not affected.

Link to comment

But that's the point of your argument: 'We don't like that we can't list a hike as the primary event. (Even though we can still do the hike and even list it as a supplementary activity to the hike)'

What is your proposed solution?

Nothing is being proposed. Just ranting and raving and huffing and puffing about listing content. That's why this is still going on.

Here's some proposed solutions

  1. Allow the add-in activity for the purpose of logging attended to be 5 minutes instead of half-an-hour. If the purpose of the time limit is to have enough time to form meaningful relationships that happens on the hike. If the purpose is to have some definition of attended to prevent event owners from deleting logs, five minutes is long enough to look around and see who is there.
  2. Don't require events stay in one place. It's an easy enough change to say you can log a hiking event if you go on the hike. You might require that you are at the starting point for five or ten minutes to allow people a chance to arrive. But that shouldn't be how the event is defined.
  3. Probably not a popular solution, but allow reviewers to exercise discretion as to whether the event is just an organized geocache hunt or if it is primarily a social activity for geocachers. Perhaps there could be some requirement that event owner needs to document activities on the hike other than finding caches. - e.g. we will stop at the view point to take pictures (probably won't take more than half an hour though).

Link to comment

For others (closer to the Lilypad), moving events were rarely, if ever (and I mean a tiny, itsy-bitsy sliver of a percentage) published.

Not true! For the last couple of years there has been a series of events (for a while the CO was trying to do monthly, but dropped to quarterly events) published here in the Seattle area (i.e.. Lilypad-land) that were bicycle events: cachers meeting to ride bikes along a bike trail. There are always some caches along said trail, but that wasn't the purpose of the ride (many attendee's had already found many if not all the caches). These can no longer be listed on GC.com under the new rules. The 'workaround' doesn't make the moving activity part of the event, no matter how often you claim it does. It's still "after" the event, or "outside" of the event - however you put it, it's not part of the event. And that's what some of us don't like. Can we live with it, yes. Like it, no. Hence the discussion.

Can you post GC codes? There might be a case here which is better explained with context.

 

In the era of the guidelines cezanne was discussing (around 2005), I don't recall seeing any events that were 100% "moving" in Portland. I'm sure--positive, in fact--that I missed some which were "moving", but a full case that does not make.

 

Again, this comes back to Reviewers taking liberties with listing publication, and owners taking liberties with the guidelines according to Groundspeak. They have decided to clarify and ban and sadden via this update to the guidelines, which are more clearly interpreted by Reviewers and owners--thus putting the Event Cache train back on Groundspeak's tracks.

Here's the CO's list of events: Ride Bikes!

Ah, see that's since 2013. I was talking more "historically"--back when I was living in the area 2005-2009. I get the feeling that these kinds of "moving" events were more of a new way of bending the guidelines, but still well within reason.

 

Yet, the guidelines have now been clarified, and the "moving" aspect can seemingly only happen if there is a 30-minute period at the listed coordinates included in the event planning and execution.

Link to comment

All irrelevant. Since you've joined the game, you've never hosted an event. This only means you'll bat 1000 at the rate you're going. If that stat suits you, go for it!

So only event hosts can make comments about event rules? How about the participants is those events? I've not hosted a hiking event, but I've been on them and enjoyed them (you even linked one I did earlier in this thread* - interestingly, by the CO that started this thread).

Don't put up that straw man distraction. Anyone can have an opinion, but arguing that there's a mass geocide on tap because of the changes, or that one doesn't think a certain way of writing a cache listing to meet the guidelines is possible...well, that's just silly. Put your sadness and consternation where your mouth is--if you want the game to be a certain way, be the change you're looking for.

 

 

*Side Comments: I'm not local to the CO, I just happened to be in town at the right time. And that's one of the reasons I'm not happy about the rule change, it's hard to find out about (non-GC) events by cachers that are set up on local pages, as out-of-towners don't know about those sites. But when they are (were?) listed on GC.com I could see them and join in. I admit, I'd probable go even if it wasn't a hike event just to meet the locals, but I made sure to get to this one because it was a hike in an area "new" to me.

And wouldn't it be great if there were no more smiley for an "Attended", and the guidelines relaxed, and less pressure for attendees, owners, and possible attendees to worry about what "constitutes 'attended' at the Event Cache?

 

Make the Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Cache a community announcement for a gathering or activity for geocachers to join in on, and that's it. Awesome!

Link to comment

That, cezanne, is how you put things to rest. :anibad: (Why am I doing your work for you? Because I care!)

 

Thank you for writing the mail - I appreciate it as your chances to get a helpful reply

are certainly better than mine. I do not agree however that you did my work.

Oh, but I did.

 

You don't think it could get published, but refused to try and create, work with Reviewers, and publish a cache that proves your point.

 

So I went to the top because you wouldn't. If I find that this cache type can be published, you'll be happy, content, and drop it, right?

Link to comment

And wouldn't it be great if there were no more smiley for an "Attended", and the guidelines relaxed, and less pressure for attendees, owners, and possible attendees to worry about what "constitutes 'attended' at the Event Cache?

 

Make the Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Cache a community announcement for a gathering or activity for geocachers to join in on, and that's it. Awesome!

Certainly people may want to use events to announce a group of gecoachers getting together for a cache hunt or just for some other activity that TPTB don't want to list as event (maybe because it would be commercial or have an agenda outside of geocaching). What make you think that Groundspeak would want to list these announcements as some non-event that doesn't earn a smiley?

 

I think limitations on events are there because Groundspeak only wants to list certain activities: those that they see as facilitating socializing of geocachers but not simply an attempt to have an organized search for geocaching and not some just getting some geocacher together to go to some non-geocaching event.

 

I think a better approach would be to review the list of non-listable event and see whether it makes sense to allow some to be treated as events.

 

Experiments have been done with allowing certain organized cache hunts to be listed. Allowing hikes and certain other moving events may also be something that can be relaxed. I'd like to have a geocacher day at a professional baseball game - but that might be seen as having commercial overtones.

 

In the end I think Groundspeak needs guidelines for what they will list. But there are several ideas that either can't be listed now or must include an add-in activity to be listed.

Link to comment

But that's the point of your argument: 'We don't like that we can't list a hike as the primary event. (Even though we can still do the hike and even list it as a supplementary activity to the hike)'

What is your proposed solution?

Nothing is being proposed. Just ranting and raving and huffing and puffing about listing content. That's why this is still going on.

I can't speak for the others -- in fact, I don't think I'm looking at this the same as the others -- but my point is that the restrictions seem silly and unnecessary. The only justification I've even heard is the ability to socialize, and has been pointed out over and over, the rules don't actually do anything to enhance socialization, yet they prevent things that are as social as any stationary event.

 

And for the Nth time, I can't propose a solution because I don't know what problem led to the restrictions.

 

You don't think it could get published, but refused to try and create, work with Reviewers, and publish a cache that proves your point.

 

So I went to the top because you wouldn't. If I find that this cache type can be published, you'll be happy, content, and drop it, right?

Still looking forward to the response, since, honestly, I think your confidence it will be allowed is misplaced. Whether I'm happy depends on the "why or why not": I won't be very happy if the response doesn't make it crystal clear why the response is the only possible interpretation of the guidelines.

Link to comment

You don't think it could get published, but refused to try and create, work with Reviewers, and publish a cache that proves your point.

 

Actually, I think that the way the event guideline is formulated there is no other possible correct interpretation as the one that the official event has to stay at the posted coordinates - everything stated afterwards just states additional conditions. If something else is meant, I would be happy but the formulation in any case then would need to be rewritten and clarified.

 

If I would get a cache published, it would not help that much - caches slip through and so published caches cannot be used to deduce something about the guidelines.

 

I think that we can have questions and concerns regarding the guidelines without the urgent wish to hide an affected cache/organize an affected event right away.

 

So I went to the top because you wouldn't. If I find that this cache type can be published, you'll be happy, content, and drop it, right?

 

Apart from the fact that I think it is more likely that the answer will be no, I will not be fully content as there are others issues as well in connection with the discouragement of active events as you happened to call them.

The enforcement of the D rating to be 1* is one of them, but they are others too.

Link to comment

I can't speak for the others -- in fact, I don't think I'm looking at this the same as the others -- but my point is that the restrictions seem silly and unnecessary. The only justification I've even heard is the ability to socialize, and has been pointed out over and over, the rules don't actually do anything to enhance socialization, yet they prevent things that are as social as any stationary event.

 

And for the Nth time, I can't propose a solution because I don't know what problem led to the restrictions.

 

First, Groundspeak isn't obligated to provide a crystal clear answer. They can if they want, or they don't have to. We have the option to leave if we don't like it. They can take that choice of ours into consideration as to whether they answer or not.

Second, you being unable to propose a solution is precisely why these threads continue to thrive. Because of the arguing about opinions, with no effort to actually make change. Whether you think you can or not, you're still here, arguing about why you don't like All The Things, why they "seem silly and unnecessary" to you, when others can plainly understand and respect them. The back and forth is tiresome.

 

Allow the add-in activity for the purpose of logging attended to be 5 minutes instead of half-an-hour. If the purpose of the time limit is to have enough time to form meaningful relationships that happens on the hike. If the purpose is to have some definition of attended to prevent event owners from deleting logs, five minutes is long enough to look around and see who is there.

I'm not sure what you mean by "add-in activity for the purpose of logging attended to be 5 minutes". The event needs to be 30+ minutes, but attendees don't have to be there 30+ minutes. It's only the responsibility of the host to make sure someone is at the posted coordinates for the duration of the listed event. The intent is that hosts will actually try to provide an event that people want to be at that's geocaching related which is at least 30 minutes. I highly doubt that people start creating boring 30 minute events just to get a smiley. This minimum time will help ensure that A] people will put more effort into creating good and fun events, or B] people who only want to create short events or moving events won't be able to publish them any more in that strict format (presuming they don't care to work with the reviewer to still provide the event activities they want to provide in a valid event listing).

 

* Don't require events stay in one place. It's an easy enough change to say you can log a hiking event if you go on the hike. You might require that you are at the starting point for five or ten minutes to allow people a chance to arrive. But that shouldn't be how the event is defined.

* Probably not a popular solution, but allow reviewers to exercise discretion as to whether the event is just an organized geocache hunt or if it is primarily a social activity for geocachers. Perhaps there could be some requirement that event owner needs to document activities on the hike other than finding caches. - e.g. we will stop at the view point to take pictures (probably won't take more than half an hour though).

These two I think are related. Again, I'm convinced that the reason for no moving events is primarily to dissuade geocache-finding events, as well as to allow a location that attendees can be sure to be at in order to actually "attend" the event.

My initial thoughts on allow reviewers to exercise discretion is that it won't happen - they don't want to give reviewers more work, let alone provide more opportunity for cachers to complain and rant about unfairness; they have to deal with that enough already :P thus the 'no precedent' rule.

 

I think that requiring reviewers to follow rules across the board, with zero room for flexibility is a bad thing as mistakes happen and people will complain of unfairness between event A and B when A was published and B wasn't, but I also think that too much flexibility will open the door for far more appealing and complaining about reviewers because of the same 'unfairness'. I don't envy Groundspeak in trying to find some balance point where reviewers have enough information in guidelines to make a judgement call, including regional flexibility, cultural flexibility, and some personal judgement, while also affording the right to make that decision without being fundamentally called out for being wrong when someone throws a precedent at them.

 

Reviewers can grasp the 'spirit' of the guidelines, and the minimum objective requirements for publishing. Given those parameters, they have a difficult job. I don't think for a second Groundspeak will start requiring hosts to document activities that happen at the event. It also makes gc.com more than just a "listing service". GS can't control event contents and activities, they can only control what is allowed in the listing, and encourage (and presume) that hosts abide by the intent of the listing service and what Groundspeak defines and allowable and disallowed.

 

But this battle between community and Groundspeak will never end. Groundspeak listens, and makes decisions on a wide variety of factors, whether it's just simple happiness of geocachers or profit and sustaining the business model. Give'em a break! :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

The enforcement of theD rating to be 1* is one of them, but they are others too.

 

Since when? How did this event I attended get approved then? Or this one?

 

Probably related to this thread (link for reference):

 

Events and ratings discussion

 

Your first example is obviously odd, to say the least. Your question appears to "wag the dog" in my opinion. Rather than asking how it got Published, I would be more curious on why the Host felt compelled to give an obviously erroneous rating? Were they trying to scare people off?

 

Your second example doesn't really appear worthy to discuss IMO (i.e. 1-2 stars...meh)

Link to comment

But this battle between community and Groundspeak will never end. Groundspeak listens, and makes decisions on a wide variety of factors, whether it's just simple happiness of geocachers or profit and sustaining the business model. Give'em a break! :P

 

Groundspeak is in a difficult position. They want to just be a listing service. But they also want to be a business. Part of that is attracting and maintaining geocachers.

 

They initially decided to list events because promoting and facilitating social interaction among geocache is one way to grow and maintain the base of users. But they also decided early on that they needed to limit events. They wanted geocacher to organize cache hunt informally and not turn their listing service into a community bulletin board for organized cache hunts.

 

Later they saw a need to eliminate cachers using the event to organize a group of cachers to attend some other non-geocaching event. I think their primary concern may have been to keep the Groundspeak listing from being used to advertise commercial events. Of course this rule eliminated the ability for what some might find a reasonable event like Geocacher Day at a professional baseball game.

 

What probably is the case is that Flash Mob events were being used to work around these rules. Have a flash mob then go out on a hike to find caches. Or have a flash mot even in the parking lot, then go to the baseball game.

 

I just think that making these events 1/2 hour doesn't really stop this abuse of the flash mob to list things Groundspeak doesn't want listed. You might have some people decide not to like their hike because half an hour is too burdensome, but others will find that half an hour with hot coffee and doughnuts before hike is even better than a flash mob. If there is a problem, I just think these new guidelines don't really address it.

 

Watch this for half an hour -> :omnomnom:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

The back and forth is tiresome.

??? Aren't you part of the back and forth? So you are complaining just as much about yourself as anyone else in this thread.

 

The idea of sharing opinions is not just to get you (generic) to agree to our (again, generic) viewpoint, but so GC can see what the changes are doing to the members who use their service. If the only opinion allowed is to agree with "them" then why have forums at all? "If you don't like the rules, leave!" is a pretty draconian way of thinking.

Link to comment

 

Second, you being unable to propose a solution is precisely why these threads continue to thrive. Because of the arguing about opinions, with no effort to actually make change. Whether you think you can or not, you're still here, arguing about why you don't like All The Things, why they "seem silly and unnecessary" to you, when others can plainly understand and respect them. The back and forth is tiresome.

 

I do not agree. The reason why dprovan cannot suggest a solution and noone else can is because we do not yet know what's exactly the problem as input by Groundspeak is missing. We cannot think about whether there might exist an alternative which allows certain types of events while yet taking care of all the concerns of Groundspeak because we do not know them and we do not even know whether the guidelines are meant exactly in the way they are formulated or not.

 

That's a situation where the term problem solving makes no sense at all.

A lot of this thread could have been avoided when we had a statement by Groundspeak. Whichever opinion we might have on the new version of the event guidelines - in any case they were not clarified, but rather the converse happened when it can happen that people understand them in a completely different manner (NeverSummer's interpretation differs a lot from the stricter interpretation with which I have a major issue).

 

I do not have an issue with a lower bound on the duration if events. For me even a 30 minutes event is too short. I do not agree however at all that the time limit in combination with the other guidelines will encourage events of high quality as a lot of interesting activities are not seen as allowed parts of official events. How should an event that has a superb 5 hours hike as side activity which is not accepted to be part of the event and thus ends up as a 30 minutes waiting period, ever can compete with a 2 hours campfire event where all what happens (maybe games etc) are seen as part of the event?

It makes hosts of events that before the change have been among the most popular ones for the target group somehow feel that they are doing just the bare minimum which is required (like a student who is lazy and does just the bare minimum to required a pass).

If you are comfortable with this type of effect, fine. I'm not. When it comes to solutions, what you and others offered does not in the least address these issues.

Link to comment

The enforcement of theD rating to be 1* is one of them, but they are others too.

 

Since when? How did this event I attended get approved then? Or this one?

 

I don't know. Until recently it worked in my area too, but since a few months it does not (about the time when the thread above got started). The same is true for the terrain rating if the terrain rating does not come from reaching ground zero.

 

A lot has changed which type of events can get published and how the published ones look like within the last two years in my area. This has caused a lot of frustration and anger over here.

Link to comment

The back and forth is tiresome.

??? Aren't you part of the back and forth? So you are complaining just as much about yourself as anyone else in this thread.

 

The idea of sharing opinions is not just to get you (generic) to agree to our (again, generic) viewpoint, but so GC can see what the changes are doing to the members who use their service. If the only opinion allowed is to agree with "them" then why have forums at all? "If you don't like the rules, leave!" is a pretty draconian way of thinking.

*sigh*

You entirely missed my point. It's not about stopping discussion. It's about being productive. I don't care if you don't like some of the rules. I don't like some of the rules. It's about how you don't like some of the rules. As others have said, there's a line between discussing towards finding a solution, and trolling. (I never used that term by the way, but it really is close, imo, to what some people are doing - the difference being that trolling is more like intentionally getting a rise out of being annoying, and I legitimately think that some people are sincerely not understanding, while being frustrating :P)

 

Yes, I am part of the back and forth, as are others, because I'm trying to help people understand. I'm not perfect - others show greater restraint to their frustration than I do. I have to walk away occasionally to refresh my mental capacity to formulate responses not bathed in angst :P

 

The difference is we are trying to answer and help, but the same responses and questions and lacks of understanding come back in return. With no sign of letting up, and no sign of working towards a solution other than "revert your decision so that I'm happy again".

 

The reason why dprovan cannot suggest a solution and noone else can is because we do not yet know what's exactly the problem as input by Groundspeak is missing.

No, you don't want to accept the reasoning they have given for why the rules exist.

 

That's a situation where the term problem solving makes no sense at all.

That's when it's called "ranting".

 

I do not have an issue with a lower bound on the duration if events. For me even a 30 minutes event is too short. I do not agree however at all that the time limit in combination with the other guidelines will encourage events of high quality

How about dissuading events that are not what Groundspeak wants listed (which has nothing to do with subjective "quality")

 

It makes hosts of events that before the change have been among the most popular ones for the target group somehow feel that they are doing just the bare minimum which is required (like a student who is lazy and does just the bare minimum to required a pass).

That's because they're doing the bare minimum in order to make an event about a primary activity that isn't supposed to be the event. That's not Groundspeak's problem.

 

If you are comfortable with this type of effect, fine. I'm not.

I'm not comfortable with fewer people wanting to host events just because they can't list their primary activity as the Event Listing. I too want to see more events. I want to see those activities still happen. Which, as we repeatedly say, they can, if the host really wants to provide an event that is fun for as many people as possible, put effort into designing it so it's publishable, and takes on the due responsibility of actually hosting the event.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

You don't think it could get published, but refused to try and create, work with Reviewers, and publish a cache that proves your point.

 

So I went to the top because you wouldn't. If I find that this cache type can be published, you'll be happy, content, and drop it, right?

Still looking forward to the response, since, honestly, I think your confidence it will be allowed is misplaced. Whether I'm happy depends on the "why or why not": I won't be very happy if the response doesn't make it crystal clear why the response is the only possible interpretation of the guidelines.

What if the "why" comes back as "because it meets the requirements for publication"? It seems to me that it's pretty cut-and-dry if a cache can demonstrate that it isn't for a cache hunt, isn't commercial, occurs at the listed coordinates, states a start and end time, and lasts for at least 30 minutes.

 

But, yes, time will tell. Groundspeak still has a few days before their self-stated reply window closes. Feel free to email appeals as well to get your own answer. :anibad:

Link to comment

 

It makes hosts of events that before the change have been among the most popular ones for the target group somehow feel that they are doing just the bare minimum which is required (like a student who is lazy and does just the bare minimum to required a pass).

That's because they're doing the bare minimum in order to make an event about a primary activity that isn't supposed to be the event. That's not Groundspeak's problem.

 

Apparently you do not understand the point. If a hike/bike ride etc is not supposed to be the event, then of course that's Groundspeak's fault as there is no reason to define an event which has the primary goal to foster socializing among cachers as something which excludes hikes.

 

Whatever you and others suggest here cannot work as long as the hike is not seen as part of the event.

 

Do you expect a 6 hours hike to include a 2 hours break, a raffle, games etc just to end up with more than the bare minimum for what you accept as event?

Link to comment

What if the "why" comes back as "because it meets the requirements for publication"? It seems to me that it's pretty cut-and-dry if a cache can demonstrate that it isn't for a cache hunt, isn't commercial, occurs at the listed coordinates, states a start and end time, and lasts for at least 30 minutes.

 

The issue I see is that if something occurs at the listed coordinates and then it needs to stay there between the given start and end time by definition.

Otherwise it will only occur for a certain interval at the listed coordinates.

That's why I interpret the guidelines in a stricter way than you do and dprovan and others share my interpretation.

 

 

But, yes, time will tell. Groundspeak still has a few days before their self-stated reply window closes. Feel free to email appeals as well to get your own answer. :anibad:

 

I don't think it will make them happier if several of us ask the same question you have already asked.

Link to comment

I very much do know your point.

 

Apparently you do not understand the point. If a hike/bike ride etc is not supposed to be the event, then of course that's Groundspeak's fault as there is no reason to define an event which has the primary goal to foster socializing among cachers as something which excludes hikes.

 

Whatever you and others suggest here cannot work as long as the hike is not seen as part of the event.

 

= "revert your decision so that I'm happy again".

Because you can't provide another solution. Or won't. I don't know. But you're not happy with any solution, except that Groundspeak allow hikes as the primary, moving event, with no need to require a 30 minute "sedentary" event.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

= "revert your decision so that I'm happy again".

Because you can't provide another solution. Or won't. I don't know. But you're not happy with any solution, except that Groundspeak allow hikes as the primary, moving event, with no need to require a 30 minute "sedentary" event.

 

No, I could well live with the 30 minute interval at the posted coordinates, if what is outside is allowed to be part of the (official) event (not required for attended logs) and can be taken into account for the T-rating.

 

Who would be hurt by such a solution? Those who want to make use of the 30 minutes period can do so in that setting too. If the duration of the static part of the event is clearly mentioned, who is losing something if the hike or another activity can be part of the (official) event?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

The issue I see is that if something occurs at the listed coordinates and then it needs to stay there between the given start and end time by definition.

Otherwise it will only occur for a certain interval at the listed coordinates.

That's why I interpret the guidelines in a stricter way than you do and dprovan and others share my

 

Not entirely true. The Guidelines also discuss using Additional Waypoints to address the issue of having multiple activities at different locations throughout the duration of a longer Event, let's say , something resembling a hike perhaps?

Link to comment

No, I could well live with the 30 minute interval at the posted coordinates, if what is outside is allowed to be part of the (official) event (not required for attended logs) and can be taken into account for the T-rating.

This is not what you've implied in the past. We have explicitly given examples of how events can be published in this manner.

 

I think we're at the point now that nothing else new can be brought to the table until we hear (if we do) from NeverSummer's email to TPTB.

 

The Guidelines also discuss using Additional Waypoints to address the issue of having multiple activities at different locations throughout the duration of a longer Event, let's say , something resembling a hike perhaps?
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...