Hiking Events

1.1k · March 16, 2015

Not a Groundspeak event. Most people here tend to synonimize Groundspeak with geocaching.

But it doesn't make any sense to discuss the definition of the event on the other platforms here.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Not a Groundspeak event. Most people here tend to synonimize Groundspeak with geocaching.

But it doesn't make any sense to discuss the definition of the event on the other platforms here.

I did not mention a platform. Geocaching stays geocaching, also outside of any platform.

When I did not agree with narcissa that hiking events are less about geocaching than meet and greets, I never linked

geocaching to Groundspeak. It is evident that given the current guidelines hikes cannot be integral parts of Groundspeak events, but

that is due to Groundspeak's stance and not to the nature of geocaching and geocaching events.

I definitely do not need anyone else defining a geocaching event for me. Neither gc.com nor any other platform.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

9k · March 16, 2015

Hiking can be a part of Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Listings. Just not in the way you want.

As long as they are incorporated into the event activities, in addition to the event that takes place at the posted coordinates for a defined period of time no less than 30 minutes. Simple. #roundandround

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Hiking can be a part of Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Listings. Just not in the way you want.

Yes, part of the listing (I never denied that) but not part of the geocaching event on gc.com and that's what I care about.

It's this difference that reduces the diversity of geocaching events on gc.com.

The contents of a geocaching event defines for me what is the geocaching event and not the listing.

Groundspeak apparently cares much more about listings and rules for logging attended logs than about the contents of events.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

9k · March 16, 2015

If it comes to me as an attendant. I cannot handle 30 minutes events with 200 participants. I do not even manage to talk to 5 in that time frame in the way I want to.

Then don't attend them. Easy.

It just appears to make more sense and provide more flexibility to organize the hike outside of gc.com where one is not forced to add statements into the invitation that the

hike is optional etc (those who do not want to hike, will simply not come in the setting outside of gc.com).

If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?

Glad we've finally reached a consensus on this issue - sometimes, a hike is just a hike, and doesn't need to be a geocaching event.

No concensus. I still regard it as geocaching event, but not one hosted on gc.com. Geocaching happens outside of gc.com too.

A 5 hours hike with geocachers who spend the hike to talk about geocaching comes my idea of a geocaching event much closer than a 30 minutes flash mob event.

You do know what concensus is right?

You said "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?"

Narcissa determined that your statement is in agreement, therefore: Concensus.

Do you not agree that "sometimes, a hike is just a hike, and doesn't need to be a geocaching event"?

Because certainly not every hike is geocaching-related. Perhaps he should have capitalized "Geocaching Event" to explicitly distinguish the idea, the concept of the Geocaching.com Event Listing and a generic event that is in some way related to geocaching in concept. Do we really need to do this every time?

> "I still regard it as geocaching event, but not one hosted on gc.com. Geocaching happens outside of gc.com too."

Of course they do. But a hike which is related to geocaching cannot be an "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing". And so, your response: "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?" IS concensus.

You no longer should feel you have to conflate these two ideas - the geocaching activity, and the official geocaching event.

* Geocaching happens everywhere. Not everything generically geocaching needs to be listed on Geocaching.com.

* Hikes may be just a hike, or they may be related to geocaching in concept in some way.

* Not every hike needs to be listed on Geocaching.com.

* A hike that is related to geocaching in concept in some way does not need to be listed on geocaching.com.

-- especially if the Geocaching.com Event Listing does not comply with the basic rules required for listing on Geocaching.com.

Have your geocaching-related hike. Whether you can list it on geocaching.com entirely depends on how you describe and run the event (according to the listing rules), which determines if it's a valid Geocaching.com Event Listing, whether or not the activity/activities are related to geocaching in concept in some way.

Edited March 16, 2015 by thebruce0

7.4k · March 16, 2015

Hiking can be a part of Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Listings. Just not in the way you want.

Yes, part of the listing (I never denied that) but not part of the geocaching event on gc.com and that's what I care about.

It's this difference that reduces the diversity of geocaching events on gc.com.

The contents of a geocaching event defines for me what is the geocaching event and not the listing.

Groundspeak apparently cares much more about listings and rules for logging attended logs than about the contents of events.

Lots of people have suggested ways of including hikes that occur during the event. You just don't like the idea of a bigger event where only some of the people hike. That's fine, you can like what you like, but stop being disingenuous.

9k · March 16, 2015

Groundspeak apparently cares much more about listings and rules for logging attended logs than about the contents of events.

When it comes to listing rules and enforcing consistency, YES. Definitely. And rightly so.

Do we have concensus? (which does not mean 'do you like this', but merely 'do you agree with this statement' - as you have explained in the quote above)

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Do you not agree that "sometimes, a hike is just a hike, and doesn't need to be a geocaching event"?

Because certainly not every hike is geocaching-related. Perhaps he should have capitalized "Geocaching Event" to explicitly distinguish the idea, the concept of the Geocaching.com Event Listing and a generic event that is in some way related to geocaching in concept. Do we really need to do this every time?

Of course not every hike is geocaching related, but my conclusion that cachers who want to organize a geocaching event where the hike is an integral part are better off to organize it outside of gc.com

is not to be interpreted as my concensus that such events are any less about geocaching than any geocaching event I have seen on gc.com.

> "I still regard it as geocaching event, but not one hosted on gc.com. Geocaching happens outside of gc.com too."

Of course they do. But a hike which is related to geocaching cannot be an "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing". And so, your response: "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?" IS concensus.

It is disconcensus with regard to that the hiking setup it is not a geocaching event (for me it is, for narcissa it is not). Of course it does not satisfy the current Groundspeak event guidelines, but all started off because I argued that

not allowing such events is in my opinion a loss for the community at gc.com while narcissa argued that this is not the case as such hiking events are hikes and not about geocaching. In my opinion they are as much geocaching-related as any publishable event on gc.com.

The essence of what I try to say is that I think it were better to provide those who want the moving activity to be part of the event with a way within gc.com than punishing newcomers, non locals and acchers not part of any cliques who will not be be connected enough to be get notice of active events organized outside of gc.com.

Relying on event hosts that will be sufficiently capable of suffering so that they will work with the workaround and at the same see their events degraded in smiley supplies is not a good policy in my opinion.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

7.4k · March 16, 2015

narcissa argued that this is not the case as such hiking events are hikes and not about geocaching

Not really. You're being disingenuous again. It's a real shame that you haven't been able to make your case without denigrating other people's events and misrepresenting other people's comments. I think there are some of us who actually do sympathize with the general idea that events should/can incorporate various activities.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Hiking can be a part of Groundspeak Geocaching.com Event Listings. Just not in the way you want.

Yes, part of the listing (I never denied that) but not part of the geocaching event on gc.com and that's what I care about.

It's this difference that reduces the diversity of geocaching events on gc.com.

The contents of a geocaching event defines for me what is the geocaching event and not the listing.

Groundspeak apparently cares much more about listings and rules for logging attended logs than about the contents of events.

Lots of people have suggested ways of including hikes that occur during the event. You just don't like the idea of a bigger event where only some of the people hike. That's fine, you can like what you like, but stop being disingenuous.

No, the people have suggested ways how the hikes can happen before or after the geocaching event or hikes where someone sits at a registration desk (not realistic for hiking events).

6.8k · March 16, 2015

narcissa argued that this is not the case as such hiking events are hikes and not about geocaching

Not really. You're being disingenuous again. It's a real shame that you haven't been able to make your case without denigrating other people's events and misrepresenting other people's comments. I think there are some of us who actually do sympathize with the general idea that events should/can incorporate various activities.

So then tell me how your comment was to be understood. I understood it in the way described above without any bad intent and also without any negative feeling towards you.

I started to think that our misunderstanding might come from the fact that geocaching event means something different to you than to me.

I thought maybe it means Groundspeak geocaching event to you while this is not the case for me and then would explain some misunderstandings.

Somehow what is written here is very contradictory. On the one hand, we have been told that hikes cannot be part of geocaching events on gc.com and that

they can only be mentioned in the event listing as optional activities and then you write that methods have been suggested how the hike (though moving) can be part of

the geocache event on gc.com. I'm confused how this can fit together.

There is no doubt that one can invite for a hike on an event listing. That's beyond debate. But how can the hike be part of the geocaching event on gc.com? And if it were, how can such events be rated as T=1* when they start at a parking lot? All this indicates that the hike cannot be part of the geocaching event on gc.com.

If one wants to announce a hiking activity on gc.com, then one needs to organize a meet a greet - I have not encountered any other type of workaround neither here nor somewhere else.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

6.8k · March 16, 2015

You do know what concensus is right?

Yes.

You said "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?"

Narcissa determined that your statement is in agreement, therefore: Concensus.

Ah - I start to understand. What I meant was "If Groundspeak does not see/recognize the hike as part of the geocaching event when listed on gc.com, then the event hosts who regard their hiking event as a geocaching event will not have a motivation to register their event on gc.com and turn it in an unwanted meet and greet event". I interpreted narcissa statement differently, but maybe she just meant the above. Then there would be indeed concensus, but somehow this does not fit to other statements by narcissa like that if such events are not hosted on gc.com it's no loss.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

7.4k · March 16, 2015

You do know what concensus is right?

Yes.

You said "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?"

Narcissa determined that your statement is in agreement, therefore: Concensus.

Ah - I start to understand. What I meant was "If Groundspeak does not see/recognize the hike as part of the geocaching event when listed on gc.com, then the event hosts who regard their hiking event as a geocaching event will not have a motivation to register their event on gc.com and turn it in an unwanted meet and greet event". I interpreted narcissa statement differently, but maybe she just meant the above. Then there would be indeed concensus, but somehow this does not fit to other statements by narcissa like that if such events are not hosted on gc.com it's no loss.

It's never a loss when someone gets in a huff and marches off because of something so trivial.

21.9k · March 16, 2015

Folks are welcome to march off, but please note, the march cannot be listed as an event.

9k · March 16, 2015

Do you not agree that "sometimes, a hike is just a hike, and doesn't need to be a geocaching event"?

Because certainly not every hike is geocaching-related. Perhaps he should have capitalized "Geocaching Event" to explicitly distinguish the idea, the concept of the Geocaching.com Event Listing and a generic event that is in some way related to geocaching in concept. Do we really need to do this every time?

Of course not every hike is geocaching related, but my conclusion that cachers who want to organize a geocaching event where the hike is an integral part are better off to organize it outside of gc.com is not to be interpreted as my concensus that such events are any less about geocaching than any geocaching event I have seen on gc.com.

* Because certainly not every hike is geocaching-related.

** Of course not every hike is geocaching related

Concensus.

* a hike which is related to geocaching cannot be an "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing"

** cachers who want to organize a geocaching event where the hike is an integral part [ie, explicitly defines the duration and location of the event] are better off to organize it outside of gc.com

Concensus.

* Hikes may be just a hike, or they may be related to geocaching in concept in some way.

** such events are [not] any less about geocaching than any geocaching event I have seen on gc.com

Concensus.

> "I still regard it as geocaching event, but not one hosted on gc.com. Geocaching happens outside of gc.com too."

Of course they do. But a hike which is related to geocaching cannot be an "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing". And so, your response: "If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com?" IS concensus

It is disconcensus with regard to (1) that the hiking setup it is not a geocaching event (for me it is, for narcissa it is not). Of course it does not satisfy the current Groundspeak event guidelines, but all started off because (2) I argued that not allowing such events is in my opinion a loss for the community at gc.com while narcissa argued that this is not the case as (3) such hiking events are hikes and not about geocaching. (4) In my opinion they are as much geocaching-related as any publishable event on gc.com.

1. See above. A hike can be geocaching-related (I'm confident that narcissa does not disagree). But it cannot be a 'Geocaching Event Listing'. Separate the two. Please. Do this.

2. Are you arguing opinion again?

3. Please quote where narcissa said that hikes are not about geocaching. Not that hikes are not what Groundspeak defines as a geocaching-related Geocaching.com Event Listing. I'm sure narcissa will gladly clarify if you misunderstood, that of course a hike can be geocaching-related. But that is not the point. The point is... well we've explicitly defined the point repeatedly. The Geocaching.com Event Listing.

4. Sure they can be (they are not always). But the activity is not allowable as the definition of the Geocaching.com Event Listing because it does not take place at the posted coordinates for the duration of the listed Event. Simple.

The essence of what I try to say is that I think it were better to provide those who want the moving activity to be part of the event with a way within gc.com than punishing newcomers, non locals and acchers not part of any cliques who will not be be connected enough to be get notice of active events organized outside of gc.com.
Relying on event hosts that will be sufficiently capable of suffering so that they will work with the workaround and at the same see their events degraded in smiley supplies is not a good policy in my opinion.

It's not punishing. That's colourful language. We don't deserve nor have a right to what you want to see listed. So it is not punishing. (but some may feel punished because they can't do what they want)

It's not suffering. That's colourful language. It's responsibility and adherence to rules and guidelines set by the owners of the website. (but some may feel like they're suffering because they can't do what they want)

I started to think that our misunderstanding might come from the fact that geocaching event means something different to you than to me.
...

Somehow what is written here is very contradictory. On the one hand, we have been told that hikes cannot be part of geocaching events on gc.com and that

they can only be mentioned in the event listing as optional activities and then you write that methods have been suggested how the hike (though moving) can be part of

the geocache event on gc.com. I'm confused how this can fit together.

Clearly there is a misunderstanding of meanings. But we can't debate our personal 'meanings' and get anywhere. This is why we're trying to clarify things for you, explain why "events" and "Event Listings" must be distinguished from each other. Else, you'll continue to huff and puff about why in some cases they can't coexist.

There is no doubt that one can invite for a hike on an event listing. That's beyond debate. But how can the hike be part of the geocaching event on gc.com? And if it were, how can such events be rated as T=1* when they start at a parking lot? All this indicates that the hike cannot be part of the geocaching event on gc.com.

It's the difference between the HIKE defining the location and duration of the Event Listing. A hike cannot do that because its very nature is moving. Unless you hike in circles in the vicinity of the Event Listing's coordinates for its duration, the HIKE cannot define the Event Listing. Because of its moving nature, it can only be included as an optional acitivity. Does this make sense yet?

If Groundspeak does not see/recognize the hike as part of the geocaching event when listed on gc.com, then the event hosts who regard their hiking event as a geocaching event will not have a motivation to register their event on gc.com and turn it in an unwanted meet and greet event

Whenenver you say "part of the geocaching event" you have to make it clear as to whether you mean defining the properties of the Event Listing. When we say it's an optional activity, it is a part of the Event Listing - but it does not define the Event Listing. If you grasp the difference, then you'll better understand what we are saying. We understand you want the two to be the same - to you "part of the geocaching event" means it defines the location and duration of the event. To you, an "optional hike" is not "part of the geocaching event". We are saying it is indeed "part of the geocaching event", but it does not define the Event Listing.

Groundspeak requires that any activity that defines the location and duration of the Event Listing be an activity that stays in that location for the duration of the Event Listing. That has to go without saying - the Event Listing is defined by an activity, and the definition of the Event Listing means a location and a duration, therefore an activity that defines the Event Listing must, inherently, be a static activity that remains at the location for the duration of the Event Listing.

I really don't know how many other ways to say this.

9k · March 16, 2015

Folks are welcome to march off, but please note, the march cannot be listed as an event.

:laughing:

One of these days you might be faced with publishing a 30-minute geocaching-related sedentary flash mob protest outside the doors of Groundspeak., with the optional activity afterwards to start marching.

21.9k · March 16, 2015

The march could end up the hill from Geocaching HQ at the Fremont Troll, which is arguably thematically appropriate.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

It's not punishing. That's colourful language. We don't deserve nor have a right to what you want to see listed. So it is not punishing. (but some may feel punished because they can't do what they want)

It's not suffering. That's colourful language. It's responsibility and adherence to rules and guidelines set by the owners of the website. (but some may feel like they're suffering because they can't do what they want)

I give up. Not even in my native language I'm able to not use what is colourful language for you. In a foreign language it becomes even a greater challenge.

Of course there is no right for a cache to get listed on gc.com as Groundspeak owns the site.

If those people feel punished and suffer, it suffices for them to not host events on gc.com and that's what is the loss in my opinion.

My intent was not to moralize about those who set up the rules. My intent was to point out what the result will be in terms of active events.

Clearly there is a misunderstanding of meanings. But we can't debate our personal 'meanings' and get anywhere. This is why we're trying to clarify things for you, explain why "events" and "Event Listings" must be distinguished from each other. Else, you'll continue to huff and puff about why in some cases they can't coexist.

I never thought that event listings and events are the same and I never argued that hikes cannot be part of event listings. It's not the listings I care about.

So how can narcissa write that options have been suggested that the hike can be part of the geocaching event (not part of the event listing which is trivial anyway).

Whenenver you say "part of the geocaching event" you have to make it clear as to whether you mean defining the properties of the Event Listing.

I do not care about the listing. Part of the geocaching event means that the activity is a recognized and integral part of the event and is a valuable contents that can turn the geocaching event into something special (if done appropriately). If the geocaching event ends before the hike starts, this is not the case.

Suppose there existed FPs for events too (the rating systems that exist allow the rating of events like GCVote). Then it makes a huge difference whether one is confronted with a meet and greet at a boring parking lot followed by a hike which is not part of the object to be rated by definition or whether the hike is the key ingredient of the object to be rated. Disclaimer: I'm not using cache rating systems. I just try to explain that it makes a difference whether the hike is what can define the event or whether everything has to be reduced to the meet and greet. In the latter case it would mean that if meet and greets are combined with hikes, the only reasonable way in terms of the offer made to geocachers during the event would be to shift the event to a beautiful place along the way and set for a longer duration than 30 minutes and not have the meet and greet at the boring starting point. If the hike is part of the event, it does not matter and all setups are possible.

When we say it's an optional activity, it is a part of the Event Listing - but it does not define the Event Listing.

Th event listing for me is a collection of words in the internet, but apparently for you it is something real, or did I misunderstand something again?

If you grasp the difference, then you'll better understand what we are saying. We understand you want the two to be the same

No. One is a real world experience, the other is a virtual object in the internet.

I understand the guidelines and I think I can distinguish between events that are publishable on gc.com according to the guidelines and those who are not publishable.

What I regret is that the way the guidelines are, a lot of active events will be organized outside of gc.com.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

9k · March 16, 2015

I give up.

Ditto.

the way the guidelines are, a lot of active events [which do not comply with the Event Listing rules] will be organized outside of gc.com.

CONSENSUS.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

the way the guidelines are, a lot of active events [which do not comply with the Event Listing rules] will be organized outside of gc.com.

CONSENSUS.

Yes, concensus on the above. I never denied that such events currently are not complying with the guidelines - otherwise it would have been absurd to argue that such events are banned from gc.com.

With "outside of gc.com" I did not mean setting up an event listing for a meet and greet complying with Groundspeak's rules and mention the hike there, but rather not use gc.com at all to

make such events known. And that is what causes the loss for the community and the diversity on gc.com in my opinion, but apparently there is no concensus about that.

9k · March 16, 2015

Consencus, once again.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

There is nothing wrong with it. It just appears to make more sense and provide more flexibility to organize the hike outside of gc.com where one is not forced to add statements into the invitation that the hike is optional etc (those who do not want to hike, will simply not come in the setting outside of gc.com).

If the hike is not seen as part of the geocaching event, then why register the event at all at gc.com? To provide additional options for smilies for the 50%?

As far as listing the event on gc.com, you can opt to set it up in the way in which you've described, outside of the site, but you're excluding all new cachers who have no idea of how to figure out where to go and whom to contact.

Yes, that's why I mentioned the newcomers and non locals. However when weighing taking these people into account, most event hosts who feel very uncomfortable with the meet and greet workaround

will decide for hosting the events outside. And that's one of the reasons why I think that the new event guidelines bring along a loss for the community.

THAT'S what I miss if I'm so insistent that the hike be part of the event and that's what I MIGHT miss if I don't go to events set up in this manner. I'm not willing to take that chance, solely because the event is listed as a meet and greet instead of a hiking event.

Your arguments are from the point of view of the attendant while mine have shed light on the view of those event hosts who feel unconfortable with their events being reduced to meet and greets. That's two different things. If someone is not caring or decides to use the meet and greet workaround, fine, there is nothing bad about it. What I regret is that many will to decide to organize their events in other ways and then you as an attendant have no choice to decide whether to attend if you do not know about the event.

That's why I still think that trying to be a bit more welcoming to those event hosts for whom it is not about the meet and greet would be nice (of course there is no right). But apparently I'm quite alone in this thread with the belief that this would be nice.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

2k · March 16, 2015

Yes, that's why I mentioned the newcomers and non locals. However when weighing taking these people into account, most event hosts who feel very uncomfortable with the meet and greet workaround

will decide for hosting the events outside. And that's one of the reasons why I think that the new event guidelines bring along a loss for the community.

Hypothetically, because there's no hard proof one way or the other that this will be the route future event hosts might consider. You could just as easily hypothesize that most event hosts will adapt to the new guidelines and continue to publish events for geocachers to do hikes, kayak paddles, ice skating, or any other event after the official event is complete. Since you have no plans to host and I'm guessing that you haven't talked to MOST hosts who have hosted events in the past, present, and future, you're making assumptions instead of factual claims so this hypothesis based on what you believe can't be verified one way or the other. It might happen your way or it might not.

Rather than a loss for the community, how about it be a gain by publishing the meet and greet so you can encourage new cachers to get out and hike after the event? You have to be there a bit early (before departure time listed) anyway to make sure you're part of the group hike so although the event itself isn't what you hoped for and WILL get some attended logs from those not going on the hike afterwards, it's a win if you get 2-3 new cachers (or 2-3 non-local cachers who come specifically to do the hike that follows the event) to experience something different. Why take that option away from them by NOT listing the meet and greet?

Your arguments are from the point of view of the attendant while mine have shed light on the view of those event hosts who feel unconfortable with their events being reduced to meet and greets. That's two different things. If someone is not caring or decides to use the meet and greet workaround, fine, there is nothing bad about it. What I regret is that many will to decide to organize their events in other ways and then you as an attendant have no choice to decide whether to attend if you do not know about the event.

You've attempted to shed light both as an attendee AND as a commentator about what other event hosts MIGHT do and they follow the same line of thought. The highlighted statement still applies as a host too, if worded just a bit differently. "THAT'S what I miss if I'm so insistent that the hike be part of my event and that's what I MIGHT miss if I don't host events set up in this manner. I'm not willing to take that chance, solely because my event is listed as a meet and greet instead of a hiking event." I'm pretty sure Deermark (the host of the event I listed as well as the multi we did the next day) would have felt like he missed out on the opportunity we shared if he was so adamant that he didn't submit the event because the hike wasn't part of it.

I hosted this event, published under the new guidelines BEFORE they were officially enacted (because that's how my regional reviewers roll) and as the host, I would have missed the opportunity to share a great hike with the three others that went with me and made the day memorable. If I had gotten so upset that the hike couldn't be the event, and I wouldn't publish it, I would have missed out on that great hike and the majority of the day spent with those fun cachers. I also wouldn't have had the opportunity to get some good inside information about the best way to avoid some messy areas in the WMA, what to do based on the conditions we might find, and the best locations to park cars. I got to meet some cachers I had only heard about or read their logs and if I had done it OUTSIDE of gc.com (which I could have), I probably wouldn't have even met the local cachers since the area in which they live is not my normal area to visit. I wanted to meet them, let them know I was in the area, and hoped that they could join me on my hike. I don't publish the event, I don't get to make those connections I now have made. It works both ways, as an attendee AND as a host.

Edited March 16, 2015 by coachstahly

9k · March 16, 2015

See, you keep distinguishing "meet & greet" from "active" events, as if Groundspeak were pitting the two against each other. It's a strawman. It's not meet & greet vs active. A meet & greet can be active, and events that aren't meet & greets can also be active. Groundspeak is not against "active" events. Groundspeak wants their events to be defined by activities ("active") that take place in one location for a duration no less than 30 minutes.

Stop making it about "sedentary" vs "active". It's better described as "static" vs "moving" in that the latter cannot define an Event Listing by Groundspeak's rules - occuring at one location for more than 30 minutes. By the very definition of "moving".

Yes, that's why I mentioned the newcomers and non locals. However when weighing taking these people into account, most event hosts who feel very uncomfortable with the meet and greet workaround will decide for hosting the events outside. And that's one of the reasons why I think that the new event guidelines bring along a loss for the community.

For those who are dead-set on defining their Event Listing by activities that are fundamentally not activities that take place at one location for a duration of at least 30 minutes, then yes, they will decide to host their events elsewhere. Even if they're about geocaching.

Whether that's a "loss" for the community (local or worldwide) is completely subjective. Chances are, people who do that are on sour grapes, because it's not about the activity (which they claim it is), it's about the listing (not being defined by the activity).

Your arguments are from the point of view of the attendant while mine have shed light on the view of those event hosts who feel unconfortable with their events being reduced to meet and greets.

They don't have to be meet & greets. Such people only consider meet & greets to be the 'workaround' for having their activity as 'part of' (yet not defining) the event, when plenty of other options exist. People who don't like that will almost certainly "take their ball and go home". Those are the people you don't want to see leave. Those are also the people who want to have their cake and eat it too.

That's two different things. If someone is not caring or decides to use the meet and greet workaround, fine, there is nothing bad about it. What I regret is that many will to decide to organize their events in other ways and then you as an attendant have no choice to decide whether to attend if you do not know about the event.

Yup. And that's entirely the problem of the user who doesn't want to make a couple of very VERY minor adjustments to still provide all the activities they want to provide - whether it's a hike or rafting or picnic or pizza eating or family games in a park or puzzle solving or whatever, active or sedentary. Of all the options they have, they choose to be stubborn and not provide anything for the rest of the community. I would guess that most people in the community wouldn't bat an eye if they decided to leave.

That's why I still think that trying to be a bit more welcoming to those event hosts for whom it is not about the meet and greet would be nice (of course there is no right).

It already isn't about the meet and greet.

Those people want to make it about the meet and greet as if it's "punishment" because they have to "suffer" if they want to publish an Event Listing which isn't defined by - an activity which is in compliance with the rules that an event is in one place for a duration of at least 30 minutes.

But apparently I'm quite alone in this thread with the belief that this would be nice.

Nope. Would it be nice for more people to stay? Yep. Of course it would. Thankfully, it's their own choice to leave if they can't take the rules nor make minor adjustments after attempting to at least understand why they're in place.

Edited March 16, 2015 by thebruce0

3.8k · March 16, 2015

Again:

Come to my event.
9am-4pm.

We'll meet at the coordinates starting at 9am, and begin hiking up the mountain on llamas with kayaks at 9:30.

Can't wait to see you there.

Boom.

The only problem is that in this setting it does not comply with the current guidelines and will not be published by many reviewers.

They would require to provide 9:30 as time for the end of the event (unless someone stays at the posted coordinates until 4 pm) and given the way the guidelines are formulated right now

I cannot even blame them for requiring that change and that's the issue I have (and I do not think that this can be called trolling).

I am pretty sure that if you spent as much time on planning an event that you ARE capable of completing rather than sitting here in the forums complaining about a minor change, I'd be willing to bet you'd be able to get it done. Just a hunch. But what do I know, I am shy and introverted.

Edited March 16, 2015 by bflentje

3.1k · March 16, 2015

Oh, hadn't received my marching orders yet. Now that I see Keystone's post(s) recently, I believe I might take my popcorn and go.

But I'm still rather surprised (actually, not...) that the clear, concise, definitive answer provided by Groundspeak on the matter (thanks to my work on cezanne's behalf) has not yet put this thread to rest.

Events can be active, but they can't leave the listed coordinates.

A hike, or other activities which would remove the attendees from the listed coordinates will not allowed to be included within the Event Cache start and end time.

Event start and end times are to be listed for the duration of time where people can be sure to find the other attendees at/very near the coordinates.

Additional event activities which might take people away from the coordinates may be listed as additional waypoints, and described within the cache listing, or via an Announcement Log.

We've shown SO many times, over and over and over again, how you could, cezanne, still see the events you like to attend be listed on Geocaching.com. They simply will be for the listed location, and must be for a duration of a minimum of 30 minutes at the listed coordinates to allow people time to gather. The listing will also be limited to accurate D/T combinations for the listed coordinates--no longer can one list a skating (for example) event year after year with random and odd ratings (which smell too much like grid-filler to us, and likely also Groundspeak).

What is so confusing about the exhaustive communication documentation I provided from Groundspeak on the matter, cezanne? Can you not see that you're spinning your wheels, and have received the answers to your questions?

:drama:

Edited March 16, 2015 by NeverSummer

6.8k · March 16, 2015

See, you keep distinguishing "meet & greet" from "active" events, as if Groundspeak were pitting the two against each other.

I did not say so. However setting up a moving event as a meet and greet event and mention the moving activity was the only suggestion that was offered to those who want moving events.

Of course there are non moving events which are not meet and greet events (e.g. card playing events).

A meet & greet can be active, and events that aren't meet & greets can also be active.

With active I always have physical activity in mind. Ice skating in a small rink cannot be considered as moving event and still does not work. There again it has to be turned into a meet and greet outside.

Groundspeak is not against "active" events. Groundspeak wants their events to be defined by activities ("active") that take place in one location for a duration no less than 30 minutes.

Yes, I know. What Groundspeak wants causes however losses to the community in my opinion.

Stop making it about "sedentary" vs "active". It's better described as "static" vs "moving" in that the latter cannot define an Event Listing by Groundspeak's rules - occuring at one location for more than 30 minutes. By the very definition of "moving".

Call it however you like. It will not change the message and my opinion that many of these events I have in mind are lost for gc.com.

For those who are dead-set on defining their Event Listing by activities that are fundamentally not activities that take place at one location for a duration of at least 30 minutes, then yes, they will decide to host their events elsewhere.

Their event, not their listing. It makes no sense to turn a hiking event in a meet and greet at a parking lot. Of course those who want to have both, will be fine with the solution.

Whether that's a "loss" for the community (local or worldwide) is completely subjective. Chances are, people who do that are on sour grapes. Because it's not about the activity (which they claim it is), it's about the listing (not being defined by the activity).

Yes, of course it is subjective. I always wrote in my opinion it is a loss and that apparently there is no concensus on it being a loss.

I do not agree with your sour grape and listing statement. I already told you that a listing is a virtual object and what I write about are real world objects and experiences.

Your arguments are from the point of view of the attendant while mine have shed light on the view of those event hosts who feel unconfortable with their events being reduced to meet and greets.

They don't have to be meet & greets. Such people only consider meet & greets to the 'workaround' for having their activity as 'part of' (yet not defining) the event, when plenty of other options exist.

I cannot see any other option for a hiking event than declaring the meeting as the event and the hike as what takes place after or before the geocaching event.

Yup. And that's entirely the problem of the user who doesn't want to make a couple of very VERY minor adjustments to still provide all the activities they want to provide

You see it as minor adjustments and I see them as major changes which change everything the planned event is about. Of course the activities can be provided, but not as part of the geocaching event on gc.com.

- whether it's a hike or rafting or picnis or pizza eating or family games in a park or puzzle solving or whatever, active or sedentary. Of all the options they have, they choose to be stubborn and not provide anything for the rest of the community. I would guess that most people in the community wouldn't bat an eye if they decided to leave.

It's rather the converse. These people will still provide activities, but will not organize them on gc.com. Those who lose are only those who are not well connected.

What will remain on gc.com are the events in restaurants, coffee houses or picnic areas while the ones involving physical activities will be los and will at least in my area predominantly not be

hosted on gc.com.

I have provided already some examples. It is not less work e.g. for the host of the ice skating event to have it next year outside of gc.com. They are investing even more work my

trying to announce the event via other channels where more intiative is required than for submitting a cache listing on gc.com.

I would not call it stubborn to prefer to organize an ice skating event on a skating area and for cachers who are interested to take part in the skating. There are enough meet and greets and there are better places for meets and greets than parking lots and other 0815 places.

Even if someone understands why the rules are in place, this is no reason to stay with events on gc.com and let them get degraded into something unwanted. The event host needs to be happy with the event set up - otherwise an event cannot turn into anything productive at all and noone will enjoy it in the end.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

5.6k · March 16, 2015

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

3.1k · March 16, 2015

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

Odd that the Lackey's statement is not quite that of Appeals on the matter... Hmmmm.... :huh:

Are Reviewers now all going to ask each event cache owner if they'll be at the listed coordinates (or if a proxy will be) for the listed start-end time duration?

Edited March 16, 2015 by NeverSummer

6.8k · March 16, 2015

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

That's interesting. I could live with such a requirement. However it contradicts what has been said before and also contradicts what NeverSummer has been told.

I also understood Keystone in a different manner. It gets more and more confusing.

9k · March 16, 2015

Thanks Jester. I'd wager that various reviewers would interpret it differently, as I know there are some that will not publish a listing if the event activity is moving away from the coordinates during the duration the posted event... but if a lackey says it is allowable, it could be successful appeal.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Thanks Jester. I'd wager that various reviewers would interpret it differently, as I know there are some that will not publish a listing if the event activity is moving away from the coordinates during the duration the posted event... but if a lackey says it is allowable, it could be successful appeal.

I do not think so given the fact that NeverSummer got the reply from the appeals team and according to Keystone from the coordinating person Cathy (I'm sure I'm using the wrong term - I cannot remember the right one, no bad intent).

In any case it however demonstrates that there are subleties involved in the issue about moving caches that are not fully clear and it is not fully clear whether the guidelines really need to be as strict as it seems to be given the reply from appeals.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

March 16, 2015

I give up.

you cannot be confused with a quitter... after 14 pages.

Not even in my native language I'm able to not use what is colourful language for you. In a foreign language it becomes even a greater challenge.

it seems that this is a big part of the issue. language and cultural differences combined with internet familiarity have some assuming understanding where there is very little.

for the small group(s) of 5-10 cachers that want to hike to the top of mt. everest as a single event with no 30 minute break at the beginning, middle, or end... they'll have to find another way to organize their niche, clique, gang, or special interest group. for all others... we'll be sitting down in the restaurant divulging all the puzzle finals and signing logs of caches that were brought to the event.

7.4k · March 16, 2015

I give up.

you cannot be confused with a quitter... after 14 pages.

Not even in my native language I'm able to not use what is colourful language for you. In a foreign language it becomes even a greater challenge.

it seems that this is a big part of the issue. language and cultural differences combined with internet familiarity have some assuming understanding where there is very little.

for the small group(s) of 5-10 cachers that want to hike to the top of mt. everest as a single event with no 30 minute break at the beginning, middle, or end... they'll have to find another way to organize their niche, clique, gang, or special interest group. for all others... we'll be sitting down in the restaurant divulging all the puzzle finals and signing logs of caches that were brought to the event.

I was going to write a sarcastic "Come to my Mount Everest event" comment, but http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5JCD1_roof-of-the-world-cito

And also: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5JE9K_meet-and-great-the-top-of-the-world

Edited March 16, 2015 by narcissa

2k · March 16, 2015

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

If that's truly the case, then apparently even the people at HQ aren't on the same page since it's in direct contrast to what NeverSummer received via appeals and the reviewer. I also understand that perhaps this is still something that needs to be sorted out so all parties are on the same page.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

for the small group(s) of 5-10 cachers that want to hike to the top of mt. everest as a single event with no 30 minute break at the beginning, middle, or end... they'll have to find another way to organize their niche, clique, gang, or special interest group.

It is neither about events for 5-10 cachers nor about hikes to the top of mt. everest. Even 5 hour hikes get more partipants in my area than meet and greets in many parts of the world.

It is also not about not having a break, but about not willing to refer to the break as the event. The break is the break.

There are typically breaks between lessons at school and so the breaks can be seen as part of the time schedule, but the breaks are not the course program.

It's a lot about the role assigned to something that determines its value.

I could well live if the reviewers allowed the type of event mentioned in The Jester's post. However I fear that only few reviewers allow such events that move away if logging at all

times is allowed.

for all others... we'll be sitting down in the restaurant divulging all the puzzle finals and signing logs of caches that were brought to the event.

I do not know how to interpret this.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

9k · March 16, 2015

> setting up a moving event as a meet and greet event and mention the moving activity was the only suggestion that was offered to those who want moving events.

No, that was the minimum suggestion to make the activity as close to the main event as allowable. A host could do much more present a fun event that includes a hike as an activity. If it was about the hike, this would not be an issue. But because it's about the listing, and the hike defining the listing, it a problem to these people, because the meet & greeet whatever the person decides to do in one location for 30 minutes minimum is seen as "punishment" and "suffering" on their part. Your words.

> Of course there are non moving events which are not meet and greet events (e.g. card playing events).

Or games. Or puzzle solving. Or playing in a park. Or constructing containers. Or whatever ACTIVity you can conceive that does not require moving to a very different location.

> With active I always have physical activity in mind. Ice skating in a small rink cannot be considered as moving event and still does not work. There again it has to be turned into a meet and greet outside.

Yup. Contrary to your implication, stationary events can indeed be physical activity.

I would disagree that ice skating events cannot be published. If not, it would be subjective to the reviewer and likely dependent on how it's worded. It is static. It is social. If someone says it cannot be published because it's not wheelchair accessible, I would appeal that. I don't recall any quote in the past that has explicitly stated that an ice skating event cannot be published.

> What Groundspeak wants causes however losses to the community in my opinion.

Many of us who don't think the loss of people who want to publish events that are not allowed would be a loss are people who understand and are loose and humble enough to make the minor changes necessary to publish the event listing in an allowable form, and probably think of those who would huff and leave as problematic to the community anyhow.

So yep, you may consider it a loss. Other people may not. Consensus.

> Call it however you like. It will not change the message and my opinion that many of these events I have in mind are lost for gc.com.

Those events lost for gc.com? Yep. That's the point.

>> For those who are dead-set on defining their Event Listing by activities that are fundamentally not activities that take place at one location for a duration of at least 30 minutes, then yes, they will decide to host their events elsewhere.

> Their event, not their listing. It makes no sense to turn a hiking event in a meet and greet at a parking lot. Of course those who want to have both, will be fine with the solution.

Um, yes, their event and their listing. Both are theirs. A hiking event does not have to become a "meet and greet in a parking lot". Those who want only the hiking activity will not be fine with any solution, and will leave.

> I already told you that a listing is a virtual object and what I write about are real world objects and experiences.

Irrelevant. This is about the rules for an Official Geocaching.com Event Listing. However anyone may define a generic "event" is irrelevant. Only certain types of generic "events" are allowable to define an Official Geocaching.com Event Listing. It is not an exclusion of specific activities, it is a ruleset that disallows classes of activities that are by their nature not taking place at one location. It has nothing to do with active or sedentary. It has nothing to do with pizza eating or hiking or ice skating or meeting and greeting. It is about the Event Listing being in a single location for a minimal period of time.

> I cannot see any other option for a hiking event than declaring the meeting as the event and the hike as what takes place after or before the geocaching event.

See above.

It's only single-minded people who refuse to do anything other than the hike who hate that a "meet and greet" (technically, the host being around for 30 minutes even if no one shows up until the last minute) is the absolute minimum change to include their hike in an Event Listing.

> You see it as minor adjustments and I see them as major changes which change everything the planned event is about. Of course the activities can be provided, but not as part of [ie defining the location and duration of] the geocaching event on gc.com.

Then such activities are disallowed if defining the Event Listing. You understood that. Not because of the practical insignificance of the change (oh no, 30 minutes), but the subjective meaning of the change ("shameful", "punishment", "suffering"). ie, sour grapes.

> What will remain on gc.com are the events in restaurants, coffee houses or picnic areas while the ones involving physical activities will be los and will at least in my area predominantly not be hosted on gc.com.

Physical activities can published as Official Geocaching.com Event Listings. As long as they're stationary at/near the posted coordinates for the duration of event listing.

*rinse, repeat*

> I have provided already some examples. It is not less work e.g. for the host of the ice skating event to have it next year outside of gc.com. They are investing even more work my

trying to announce the event via other channels where more intiative is required than for submitting a cache listing on gc.com.

Entirely their choice. If they want to take up all that "extra work" instead of making a few changes to the listing and a bit of practical responsibility in hosting -- because it's for the community, right? -- then they can certainly do so.

> I would not call it stubborn to prefer to organize an ice skating event on a skating area and for cachers who are interested to take part in the skating. There are enough meet and greets and there are better places for meets and greets than parking lots and other 0815 places.

Like I said, I firmly do not believe that ice skating events are not allowed to be published. A reviewer or lackey will need to explicitly state otherwise. Until then, I don't see them as contrary to the current event rules, and I don't know how that became a point in this discussion - even having read the comments about ice skating events.

> Even if someone understands why the rules are in place, this is no reason to stay with events on gc.com and let them get degraded into something unwanted.

If you don't like the "degraded unwanted" events as they're now allowed to be published on Geocaching.com, then you shouldn't stay with events on gc.com

> The event host needs to be happy with the event set up - otherwise an event cannot turn into anything productive at all and noone will enjoy it in the end.

Consensus.

Edited March 16, 2015 by thebruce0

9k · March 16, 2015

As this thread has become a stand off of who wants to say the same things over and over again the most, I'm now going to bow out.

O(ut)BTL

6.8k · March 16, 2015

No, that was the minimum suggestion to make the activity as close to the main event as allowable. A host could do much more present a fun event that includes a hike as an activity. If it was about the hike, this would not be an issue. But because it's about the listing, and the hike defining the listing, it a problem to these people, because the meet & greeet whatever the person decides to do in one location for 30 minutes minimum is seen as "punishment" and "suffering" on their part. Your words.

The punishment is not to have to include 30 minutes at the posted coordinates, but the fact that whatever nice moving activity one organizes it is not recognized as part of the geocaching event.

It is allowed to be mentioned the listing, that's all. At least based on the interpretation along the lines of the reply to NeverSummer and how I understand the guidelines.

I would disagree that ice skating events cannot be published. If not, it would be subjective to the reviewer and likely dependent on how it's worded. It is static. It is social. If someone says it cannot be published because it's not wheelchair accessible, I would appeal that. I don't recall any quote in the past that has explicitly stated that an ice skating event cannot be published.

One of the problems is that there are entrance fees to all potential ice skating areas. So the event has to be turned in a meet and greet outside of the ice skating area which is definitely not

what the idea behind such an event is.

Many of us who don't think the loss of people who want to publish events that are not allowed would be a loss are people who understand and are loose and humble enough to make the minor changes necessary to publish the event listing in an allowable form, and probably think of those who would huff and leave as problematic to the community anyhow.

We talk about two different things: You about changes to make a listing publishable at gc.com and I about that there is hardly any motivation to make what is considered by me and many others as a major change. The events will still be organized but not on gc.com.

There might be a tradition for the meet and greet set up in your area - there is no such tradition in my area and as I told you cachers with an upbringing like me never have considered

those now most common regular events in restaurants to be worthy of what a geocaching event has meant to me.

Um, yes, their event and their listing. Both are theirs. A hiking event does not have to become a "meet and greet in a parking lot". Those who want only the hiking activity will not be fine with any solution, and will leave.

It could also become a meet and greet at another place. The hike will however never be part of the event cache and will only tolerated by Groundspeak and not appreciated.

> I already told you that a listing is a virtual object and what I write about are real world objects and experiences.

Irrelevant. This is about the rules for an Official Geocaching.com Event Listing. However anyone may define a generic "event" is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant that the listing is apparently not a virtual object for you, but apparently something in direct connection to the event.

> I cannot see any other option for a hiking event than declaring the meeting as the event and the hike as what takes place after or before the geocaching event.

See above.

It's only single-minded people who refuse to do anything other than the hike who hate that a "meet and greet" is the absolute minimum change to include their hike in an Event Listing.

You apparently do not get the point: It is not about getting the hike included into the event listing, but into the event.

The listing and whoever logs the event is not what my arguments are about.

Entirely their choice. If they want to take up all that "extra work" instead of making a few changes to the listing and a bit of practical responsibility in hosting -- because it's for the community, right? -- then they can certainly do so.

They do it to end up with something where all their work is appreciated as part of the organized event.

Someone who bakes nice cakes for every attendant of a 30 minutes meet and greet is doing the better job than someone offering a meeting period and then leads the group along a scenic 5 hours hike and who distributes the cake during the hike to the participants if the hike is not part of the event.

2k · March 16, 2015

With active I always have physical activity in mind. Ice skating in a small rink cannot be considered as moving event and still does not work. There again it has to be turned into a meet and greet outside.

All these changing situations.

First, there is no real rink - the area covers a larger area of an urban park.

Which is it?

I'm pretty sure you can get some GREAT physical activity on a small rink/larger area of an urban park of about 7000 square meters (almost 1.75 acres for us across the pond). Just look at the short track speed skaters in the Olympics who use what is basically the equivalent of a single hockey rink, which is significantly smaller than the area for the ice skating event.

3.1k · March 16, 2015

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

If that's truly the case, then apparently even the people at HQ aren't on the same page since it's in direct contrast to what NeverSummer received via appeals and the reviewer. I also understand that perhaps this is still something that needs to be sorted out so all parties are on the same page.

I won't say 100% that we have a "word is bond" explanation from Appeals.

But, what I did provide is actual, real, and clear responses to the questions I posed. And, to that end, what we have is the only Groundspeak on-the-record ruling for "moving" events. What The Jester provided is hearsay until that person comes to the forums and posts a clarification using their Lackey credentials.

Meaning, I think that we have a case where the Appeals communication should guide the overall planning and preparation for events, but that each Event Cache submission is Reviewed and handled by Appeals in a case-by-case manner, without precedent.

So, if you still want to host a "moving event" such as a hike, bike, or paddle, you should submit the event for Review. But you must also be prepared to have that event denied publication because of the new guidelines and clarifications from Groundspeak. Also, one should be prepared to appeal if they feel that their event still meets the guidelines.

I submitted an event that met the guidelines 100% as far as I could see them, and yet was told that I must change and remove language so that the event was not "moving". To me this means that events themselves cannot move, and there must be a >30-minute time period (window), minimum, at the coordinates listed for the cache to be published.

Some Reviewers WILL NOT deny said moving cache, based on their own preferences, interpretations, and biases. That much will not be appealed by anyone, and the only recourse for users would be reporting the cache listing if they think it does not meet the guidelines (just as with any cache). So, we will still see some events "slip through the cracks". This isn't a problem to me...except for the idea that they've created these guidelines to be clearer, and to be more consistent across regions.

Until Reviewers are all on the same page as Appeals and Groundspeak, we will likely still see events that "slip through the cracks".

For those here reading the thread, we can all see clearly what Appeals has stated for guidelines for Event Cache publication. Now comes the work on our end (the 4 people still participating, and the hundreds who have read) to follow what Appeals has stated as the clear line on what constitutes an Event Cache listing on Geocaching.com.

2k · March 16, 2015

One of the problems is that there are entrance fees to all potential ice skating areas. So the event has to be turned in a meet and greet outside of the ice skating area which is definitely not

what the idea behind such an event is.

That's wrong. As long as the entrance fee is mentioned (if there is one), cachers will know that they will have to pay to get in to attend the event. One of the Trail Mix events I attended mentions that if the booth is manned, an entry fee is required. You'd even be more likely to get people to skate if they have to pay to get in and less likely to get people who are there for the smiley because they might not want to pay for the ability to log the event. Events held at our state parks like meet and greets, picnics, larger group events, etc.., all are held with the understanding that if the booth is manned, there's an entry fee cachers will have to pay to get into the park. Groundpseak allows those events to be held and I don't see why they wouldn't allow the skating event to be held either.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

I'm pretty sure you can get some GREAT physical activity on a small rink/larger area of an urban park of about 7000 square meters (almost 1.75 acres for us across the pond). Just look at the short track speed skaters in the Olympics who use what is basically the equivalent of a single hockey rink, which is significantly smaller than the area for the ice skating event.

Yes, of course - the problem is just that there is an entrance fee for such areas in my corner of the world and so the reviewers started to deny such events and asked that the gc.com event is a meet and greet outside of the ice skating area.

I probably did not formulate my reply correctly. I meant even if the ice area is very small and so it's not the moving aspect that might cause the issue, it's then about other things which again lead to the result that what formerly was possible as gc.com event is not any longer possible.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

2k · March 16, 2015

Now comes the work on our end (the 4 people still participating, and the hundreds who have read) to follow what Appeals has stated as the clear line on what constitutes an Event Cache listing on Geocaching.com.

:laughing:

3.1k · March 16, 2015

> I cannot see any other option for a hiking event than declaring the meeting as the event and the hike as what takes place after or before the geocaching event.

See above.

It's only single-minded people who refuse to do anything other than the hike who hate that a "meet and greet" is the absolute minimum change to include their hike in an Event Listing.

You apparently do not get the point: It is not about getting the hike included into the event listing, but into the event.

WHAAAAAAT?! :blink:

Now you're calling them 2 different things. HA! After all that talk back to me! :laughing:

Surely you DO understand the difference then!

When the activity of a hike is included in a cache listing, it is validated by Groundspeak as something going on in relation to the Event Cache. However, the time period of "stationary" Event Cache socialization must last 30 minutes, at minimum, at the listed coordinates:

Come meet up for a hike at NXX XX.XXX WYYY YY.YYY

I'll arrive at 9am, and we'll wait for everyone to get there, introduce themselves if they like, find a hiking partner(s) if they wish, and head out at 9:30am.

The hike may take a slow hiker like me about 5 hours to complete, so please plan accordingly if you're coming along.

I hope that anyone who is able to hike will join, but I encourage any geocachers to come and see fellow geocachers, and perhaps meet someone new in the community. See you there.

How is this not satisfactory?!

3.1k · March 16, 2015

I'm pretty sure you can get some GREAT physical activity on a small rink/larger area of an urban park of about 7000 square meters (almost 1.75 acres for us across the pond). Just look at the short track speed skaters in the Olympics who use what is basically the equivalent of a single hockey rink, which is significantly smaller than the area for the ice skating event.

Yes, of course - the problem is just that there is an entrance fee for such areas in my corner of the world and so the reviewers started to deny such events and asked that the gc.com event is a meet and greet outside of the ice skating area.

I probably did not formulate my reply correctly. I meant even if the ice area is very small and so it's not the moving aspect that might cause the issue, it's then about other things which again lead to the result that what formerly was possible as gc.com event is not any longer possible.

Aaaaand, did those who had denied listings appeal the denial of publication? <_<

6.8k · March 16, 2015

One of the problems is that there are entrance fees to all potential ice skating areas. So the event has to be turned in a meet and greet outside of the ice skating area which is definitely not

what the idea behind such an event is.

That's wrong.

Maybe, but our local reviewer insisted on that change and did not publish the ice skating event in its original form and the entrance fee was the main (but not only reason provided). The same happened for other similar events (not about ice skating).

Of course one can also debate on the meaning of "at the posted coordinates". When moving around even on small ice rink, you technically will not stay at the posted coordinates. There are many ways to deny events that are not wanted and the more complicated and frustrating it gets for people to get their events published, the more of them will give up and seek out for alternative ways.

And believe me every active outdoor event (in the sense of physical activities) that goes lost in my area or around Vienna is a big loss as there are so few such events - it is not like one loses 1 out of 50.

As long as the entrance fee is mentioned (if there is one), cachers will know that they will have to pay to get in to attend the event.

Yes, that is what one might expect, but see the above.

Experiences like the above make even hosts decide not to live through the frustrations with gc.com and the new strict event review process, but watch out for alternatives.

One of the Trail Mix events I attended mentions that if the booth is manned, an entry fee is required. You'd even be more likely to get people to skate if they have to pay to get in and less likely to get people who are there for the smiley because they might not want to pay for the ability to log the event.

Exactly, that's one of the major points. While in previous years it has not been enforced that people enter the ice area, they dealt differently with the event when it was allowed to announce it as ice skating event than as an event where it needed to be stated explicitely there is just the option to go skating but that the event takes part outside of the area for which an entrance fee is required.

Events held at our state parks like meet and greets, picnics, larger group events, etc.., all are held with the understanding that if the booth is manned, there's an entry fee cachers will have to pay to get into the park. Groundspeak allows those events to be held and I don't see why they wouldn't allow the skating event to be held either.

I guess another issue where it depends on local interpretation. Our major reviewer started to become very strict within the last year. I cannot blame him and I do not see any reasonable chance to appeal. I really wished however that the rules were clearer.

Edited March 16, 2015 by cezanne

2k · March 16, 2015

Maybe, but our local reviewer insisted on that change and did not publish the ice skating event in its original form and the entrance fee was the main (but not only reason provided). The same happened for other similar events (not about ice skating).

I would appeal the ruling as I'm finding multiple events, published after the guidelines went into effect, where there is a (possible) charge associated with attending the events, not doing the activity associated with the event.

6.8k · March 16, 2015

Now you're calling them 2 different things. HA! After all that talk back to me!

We apparently had a bis misunderstanding. The event listing never has been the same thing than the event for me.

Surely you DO understand the difference then!

I never had a problem with understanding that difference.

When the activity of a hike is included in a cache listing, it is validated by Groundspeak as something going on in relation to the Event Cache.

This is where we disagree upon. In addition I'd prefer be part of the event cache to going on in relation to the event cache.

However, the time period of "stationary" Event Cache socialization must last 30 minutes, at minimum, at the listed coordinates:

I did not question that. Only that the event cache socialization stops when the listed coordinates are left and now is turned

into a private socialization and not any longer part of the event cache.

7.4k · March 16, 2015

Come to my dead horse beating event.

Meet us at the trailhead at 9am where we'll be handing out beating implements and answering questions.

If you're not interested in beating dead horses, it is still a good chance to see some old faces, meet some new ones, and find out what dead horse beating is all about.

It's also going to be the launch of our new BEATING A DEAD HORSE geocoin. We'll be selling these beauties for $10 each.

We'll leave the trailhead at 9:30am.

For those interested in beating dead horses, it will be about a 30 minute walk on a flat gravel path to the pasture where the dead horses will be ready for us to beat.

Hiking Events

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment