Hiking Events

[+CanadianRockies]

I would understand the formulation "to no later than" in the sense that the event will not end later than 1pm but could end earlier too.

As a native English speaking American, NO LATER THAN means that the person will be there until that exact time and will NOT stay later or leave earlier. It would prevent anyone from logging the event who shows up AFTER 1300.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but my understanding of "no later than" is closer to cezanne's. In the literal sense, it means the event will last for some indefinite period of time but no longer than an hour.

 

In the context of a geocaching event, I would hope the host stays for the full hour, although I wouldn't expect them to hang around any longer than that.

[+coachstahly]

 

Does no later than in the US really enforce that it can't be earlier?

Of course I know the phrase in the sense of "hand in your assignments no later than ...." or some formulations in legal contexts but there it is never meant that it can't be earlier.

It's of course obvious that the attendants need not to be there until 13:00, but I wonder how one formulates the difference between the situation when a shop is opened until 10:00 with a guarantee and a party which ends no later than 10:00.

 

 

The event is 1200-1300. It CANNOT end early (for the host) because the host MUST be at the posted coordinates for that period of time because that's what they specified in the event listing. The time frame is part of the requirement for hosting an event. By saying no later than, the host is saying he'll be gone when the event is over, not one second more. There is NO implication that the event can end early because the host specifically stated it was from 1200-1300, as part of the requirement. He's just making sure people know that attendees that show up after 1300 will not be allowed to log the event because he won't be at the posted coordinates anymore.

 

The "no later than" phrase is the absolute latest cut off time for whatever it is you're referencing and that's when it ends, no ifs, ands, or buts. You're right in that some situations something could end early (before the specified time), but in THIS situation, it simply does not apply because the host MUST be there between the specified times because it's part of the requirement. Please don't get the two situations confused. Having a party of an indeterminate length (with no requirements for hosting attached to it) that will end no later than 8 is different than having an event with a specified time of 1200-1300 (as part of a requirement) and will last no later than 1300. Businesses are generally required to be open at the specified times listed as their operating hours. If they say they will be open from 0900 - 2000, but no later than 2000, that means, at least to me, that they'll be open during the specified times, but at 2000, the doors are promptly shut and locked. It's certainly not an optimal way to phrase that you'll be kicking out customers promptly at 2000.

 

I can already hear your rebuttal. What if the party is listed from 1800-2000 and will end no later than 2000? If no one is at the party at 1930, it's no longer a party. It's a host sitting around hoping more people show up. There's no requirement that the host must stay until the no later than time given. Unless I know people are coming towards the end because they contacted me somehow, there's no need to stick around because it's not a party anymore and I'm not required to stay there. I can choose to end my party at that time because I'm not required to stay until the end/no later than time.

 

Here's the next rebuttal. Well, if no one attends the geocaching event after 1230, it's no longer an event. According to Groundspeak and the listing, it's still an event that MUST continue until 1300 because that's the requirement of hosting an event that was published on gc.com. Is it boring for the host? Probably but the host is the one that specified the duration of the event and they MUST stick around until the end time, but no later than 1300, at which time the event is over. I can't choose to end the Groundspeak event early because the requirement is that it lasts until 1300. If the host leaves early, then there is NO way they can enforce the logging requirements that are specified on the cache page and they probably shouldn't have hosted the event in the first place for the duration of time specified.

 

Is the "no later than" phrase really the optimal choice of words here? No, but perhaps the host has had issues in the past with cachers arriving later than the specified time and wants to nip it in the bud so the issue isn't raised anymore. It's my understanding that an event with posted times is the stated duration of the event and that it can't be ended early solely because the host wants to end it because no one's there. No later than, at least in this situation and to me, means that the host won't be sticking around past the end of the stated event time but will be there during the stated times listed.

Edited March 18, 2015 by coachstahly

[+Team Microdot]

in THIS situation, it simply does not apply because the host MUST be there between the specified times because it's part of the requirement.

 

I'm aware of events that have taken place where the event organiser / host ended up being unable to attend - and the event went ahead just fine without them.

[+bflentje]

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

 

That's awesome. All of the sudden my flotilla seems like child's play.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5MC1D_jamming-on-calhoun-flotilla-style?guid=152b4c75-6f30-42a3-b280-e7f53d7e2f68

[+coachstahly]

I KNEW that point was going to come up, but I had enough tangential rebuttals to address. If there's no time for the host to make arrangements because it happened on the way to the event or things spiraled out of control and the host had enough on their plate and the event was forgotten, I'm pretty sure the attendees and Groundspeak would agree that the exceptional circumstances were out of control and there was no way the host could have made alternate plans. People were there and did what the host wanted them to do (per the cache page listing) so the event continues in the manner in which it was intended. I don't see how they could really change anything, nor would I expect them to.

 

If there was enough time for the host to make alternate arrangements so that someone else became the host, all bases are covered. That's happened here a few times and the event went off without an issue.

 

That raises an interesting question I don't know the answer to. Can you adopt an event?

Edited March 18, 2015 by coachstahly

[+NeverSummer]

Pretty clear that cezanne will never, ever be satisfied with anything we say, including word straight from Groundspeak, on the matter.

 

Resist temptation, everyone! Do not continue the feedings!

 

Cezanne will not be publishing an event, so this discussion doesn't really matter to her in the end. Cezanne can still attend events she enjoys, so long as she gets over the language that she has a problem with and simply keeps on truckin' with attending events which appear attractive to her. Until she puts her words to action (submits an event and works through appeals), this entire back-and-forth is entirely pointless. We're simply going to continue to see the nit picking we saw before...and continue to see today.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

That's awesome. All of the sudden my flotilla seems like child's play.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5MC1D_jamming-on-calhoun-flotilla-style?guid=152b4c75-6f30-42a3-b280-e7f53d7e2f68

 

You have to find a location that has an island complete with rope swing: The RI Armada Brings Some Luvvin' To Pawtuckaway.

[+bflentje]

Pretty clear that cezanne will never, ever be satisfied with anything we say, including word straight from Groundspeak, on the matter.

 

Resist temptation, everyone! Do not continue the feedings!

 

Cezanne will not be publishing an event, so this discussion doesn't really matter to her in the end. Cezanne can still attend events she enjoys, so long as she gets over the language that she has a problem with and simply keeps on truckin' with attending events which appear attractive to her. Until she puts her words to action (submits an event and works through appeals), this entire back-and-forth is entirely pointless. We're simply going to continue to see the nit picking we saw before...and continue to see today.

 

Since this thread has started on February 24th, I estimate that at a minimum, 23 unique events could have been held in Vienna.

[+derektiffany]

That raises an interesting question I don't know the answer to. Can you adopt an event?

Yes.

 

Here's one I adopted (after the original CO injured his ankle):

http://coord.info/GC4ZXZT

[+coachstahly]

Good to know. Thanks.

[cezanne]

Pretty clear that cezanne will never, ever be satisfied with anything we say, including word straight from Groundspeak, on the matter.

 

I would not dare to be that confident about what someone else is doing.

 

There are some contributors here who presented suggestions that I found worth taking into consideration in the future. Right now there are just puzzle pieces that do not yet fit together. That might change and I do not know the outcome myself about which you are so sure about.

 

What definitely will not work out is making me agree that the way Groundspeak deals with the fact is the best way and I also will not agree that the chosen language is as clear as it could be.

Of course it there plays a role that details of formulations are something very important to me but that does not make me a troll.

 

Cezanne can still attend events she enjoys, so long as she gets over the language that she has a problem with

 

I explained you many, many times that I can only take part in events that take place. Many of my issues come from the fact that the issues I mentioned cause the number of attractive events for me to decrease even further. Do not forget that all the nice examples which have been provided in this thread do not come from my area and do not forget that some of the summit events in more difficult terrain are nothing for me. The only event in my region that really would interest me

is this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5P9BY_mitsommer-am-zirbitz

and it is absolutely unmanageable for me to do this hike at night and such a short time. I still hope that once in my life I will make it to that summit, but on a very long summer day during the day.

 

Until she puts her words to action (submits an event and works through appeals), this entire back-and-forth is entirely pointless.

 

I guess we two are really very different. I do not even want to end up with being asked by a reviewer to make some modification and even less I would like to go for appeals.

I'd like to have guidelines of which I can obtain a full understanding and then get everything right on my own. It's this whole thing about "working with the reviewer" which is not really fitting to my style.

 

 

Cezanne

[+niraD]

Why would one willingly shrink the potential donor and volunteer pool?

It's just a thought, but maybe the host wasn't thinking about increasing the potential donor and volunteer pool, or about getting more Attended logs, or about getting as many people as possible to the trailhead. Maybe, just maybe, the host was thinking about the kind of event he wanted to host.

[cezanne]

Since this thread has started on February 24th, I estimate that at a minimum, 23 unique events could have been held in Vienna.

 

But definitely not by me (I live >200km away) or someone reading this thread.

Actually the ice skating event is the only event in Vienna that I can think of that included some form of physical activity and was not

extreme (like swimming in the Danube in Winter).

 

For example, while boat events are quite common in your area, such events do not exist here at all and I know noone who would be

a good candidate for organizing such an event around here and also would not know many cachers who could participate.

 

With a T=5* boat event or a hiking event on a lonesome summit it is much easier not to end up frustrated with the effects of the new guidelines than

if one is restricted to events in easier terrain and/or in urban areas.

[cezanne]

The event is 1200-1300. It CANNOT end early (for the host) because the host MUST be at the posted coordinates for that period of time because that's what they specified in the event listing.

 

You are probably right that this is what the event host has in mind. I just wondered where you get the 12:00-13:00 from.

The no later to me does not have this meaning. Of course 12:00-12:20 would not fulfill the guidelines, but for example 12:00-12:30 would.

 

It might not be important to you, both as a reviewer and an event attendant I would have asked what the statement should mean.

 

Again, I do not have the slightest issue with the event itself. It looks very nice.

[+bflentje]

Since this thread has started on February 24th, I estimate that at a minimum, 23 unique events could have been held in Vienna.

 

But definitely not by me (I live >200km away) or someone reading this thread.

Actually the ice skating event is the only event in Vienna that I can think of that included some form of physical activity and was not

extreme (like swimming in the Danube in Winter).

 

For example, while boat events are quite common in your area, such events do not exist here at all and I know noone who would be

a good candidate for organizing such an event around here and also would not know many cachers who could participate.

 

With a T=5* boat event or a hiking event on a lonesome summit it is much easier not to end up frustrated with the effects of the new guidelines than

if one is restricted to events in easier terrain and/or in urban areas.

 

I would actually call boat events in my area very UNcommon regardless of the amount of water around here. That's why I hold them. I can think of 9 water events in the last 8 years here in MN and I've hosted 8 of them. First time out I'd never been in a canoe before. I refuse to let physical limitations get in my way. Instead of talking about my fears, I try to conquer them. And working with reviewers, as much as I locally complain about them, is a mostly a cakewalk in solving listing problems.

[+coachstahly]

 

You are probably right that this is what the event host has in mind. I just wondered where you get the 12:00-13:00 from.

The no later to me does not have this meaning. Of course 12:00-12:20 would not fulfill the guidelines, but for example 12:00-12:30 would.

 

That's the time listed when the actual event we're discussing takes place. 1200-1230 would only fulfill the guidelines if that were the specified time listed on the event cache page. That's NOT the case here as it specifically states 1200-1300, one full hour.

[cezanne]

I would actually call boat events in my area very UNcommon regardless of the amount of water around here. That's why I hold them. I can think of 9 water events in the last 8 years here in MN and I've hosted 8 of them.

 

Still much more common than here where I cannot think of a single such event in more than a decade and this includes areas 200 km from me.

 

It is also not easy to come along with a location and then boats are needed and people like me already have problems in transporting a bicyle.

 

What seems to be the case nearly everywhere is that the indoor meet and greets dominate by far, but I have come across more outdoor events in North America than around here and moreover,

you have the advantage of smoke free indoor locations.

 

With outdoor locations and not being allowed to move around, there is also always the issue with the temperatures except in the warm season. Some people freeze after less than 30 minutes and that makes them leave early. SO somehow the old style hiking events were one of the very few where one could meet others in a smoke free, non freezing setting.

 

First time out I'd never been in a canoe before. I refuse to let physical limitations get in my way. Instead of talking about my fears, I try to conquer them. And working with reviewers, as much as I locally complain about them, is a mostly a cakewalk in solving listing problems.

 

I'd say with boat events, the listing problems are probably the easiest thing to cope with.

[cezanne]

 

You are probably right that this is what the event host has in mind. I just wondered where you get the 12:00-13:00 from.

The no later to me does not have this meaning. Of course 12:00-12:20 would not fulfill the guidelines, but for example 12:00-12:30 would.

 

That's the time listed when the actual event we're discussing takes place. 1200-1230 would only fulfill the guidelines if that were the specified time listed on the event cache page. That's NOT the case here as it specifically states 1200-1300, one full hour.

 

As I mentioned, as a reviewer or as an attendant I would have asked for the end time as 13:00 is not clear to me. Of course if the end time is 13:00, then everything else follows, but again then no later does not make sense to me.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

With outdoor locations and not being allowed to move around, there is also always the issue with the temperatures except in the warm season. Some people freeze after less than 30 minutes and that makes them leave early. SO somehow the old style hiking events were one of the very few where one could meet others in a smoke free, non freezing setting.

 

 

And what about my "walking tour" suggestion above?

[cezanne]

 

With outdoor locations and not being allowed to move around, there is also always the issue with the temperatures except in the warm season. Some people freeze after less than 30 minutes and that makes them leave early. SO somehow the old style hiking events were one of the very few where one could meet others in a smoke free, non freezing setting.

 

 

And what about my "walking tour" suggestion above?

 

That is something I could perhaps consider (and was one of the reasons why I replied to NeverSummer saying that I collected some puzzle pieces from this thread), but I'm sure that I'm the only one who would consider such a setting for an event. In any case, finding as suitable picnic area is not an easy thing, but it should be easier as finding a barbecue location something for which some cachers in my area in the first 3-4 years searched for in vain and that's why we never had such an event in my area, neither an official one on gc.com nor one outside.

 

What I wrote above referred not to events hosted by myself, but those available and hosted by others.

 

In any case thank you for your helpful and considerate suggestions.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

You are probably right that this is what the event host has in mind. I just wondered where you get the 12:00-13:00 from.

The no later to me does not have this meaning. Of course 12:00-12:20 would not fulfill the guidelines, but for example 12:00-12:30 would.

That's the time listed when the actual event we're discussing takes place. 1200-1230 would only fulfill the guidelines if that were the specified time listed on the event cache page. That's NOT the case here as it specifically states 1200-1300, one full hour.

Again, maybe it's a regional difference, but I don't see anything in the event listing that specifically states 1200-1300.

 

Time: NOON to no later than 1pm

To me, that's an ambiguous duration. But in the context of a geocaching event, I think it implies the host (or a representative) will be at GZ from noon until 1. However, if everyone else is gone by 12:45 p.m. and there doesn't appear to be any new boats heading toward the meeting place, then I wouldn't be shocked if the host reasonably departed at 12:45 instead of 1:00.

[+NeverSummer]

You are probably right that this is what the event host has in mind. I just wondered where you get the 12:00-13:00 from.

The no later to me does not have this meaning. Of course 12:00-12:20 would not fulfill the guidelines, but for example 12:00-12:30 would.

That's the time listed when the actual event we're discussing takes place. 1200-1230 would only fulfill the guidelines if that were the specified time listed on the event cache page. That's NOT the case here as it specifically states 1200-1300, one full hour.

Again, maybe it's a regional difference, but I don't see anything in the event listing that specifically states 1200-1300.

 

Time: NOON to no later than 1pm

To me, that's an ambiguous duration. But in the context of a geocaching event, I think it implies the host (or a representative) will be at GZ from noon until 1. However, if everyone else is gone by 12:45 p.m. and there doesn't appear to be any new boats heading toward the meeting place, then I wouldn't be shocked if the host reasonably departed at 12:45 instead of 1:00.

I think the way bflentje meant it was just that: He'd be at the coordinates...lolling about in his canoe...from 12-1. People are welcome to meet him during that time for an "attended" moment, but can paddle and explore as they please on that wonderful lake! (I miss MPLS!) He'll then go enjoy the lake himself at 1pm, and if you didn't make it during that 12-1 window, you missed out.

[+NeverSummer]

The whole point, entirely, is that events can still happen in many, many creative ways. That can be a stationary meet & greet, a flash mob, a hike, a bike, a train ride, a paddle, a rafting trip, hopscotch, leapfrog, walk, jog, horse-back ride, ATV trip, 4WD jamboree, Christmas light car tour, sporting event...whatever.

 

The bottom line is that the event listing must show clearly that there is a stationary portion of at least 30 minutes at the listed coordinates.

 

If you are unsure if your event will get published, you will have to give it a shot.

 

Being a pessimist and not trying at all will get you nowhere at all. Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work. And the simplest way to know if it works is to make sure your event listing must show clearly that there is a stationary portion of at least 30 minutes at the listed coordinates, is not commercial, is not for the organized finding of caches, states coordinates for where the event will happen, and states a start and end time for when people can expect to have to be there. You may also include other activities, and you may list the duration of those activities. However, your event must show clearly that there is a stationary portion of at least 30 minutes at the listed coordinates.

 

Sounds complicated to some, but is really quite simple. The clarification about the guideline change isn't that complicated, and still allows for the myriad event ideas to happen so long as they meet the guidelines (including the simple addition of a 30 minute minimum window where the event MUST take place at the listed coordinates). Not complicated! (Page 1?)

[cezanne]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

 

Do you insist on completely predicatable outcomes for all aspects of your life, or just in connection with the geocaching events that you will probably never organise?

[cezanne]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

 

Do you insist on completely predicatable outcomes for all aspects of your life, or just in connection with the geocaching events that you will probably never organise?

 

It's not a question of insistence, but yes wherever possible I prefer it that way to the extent possible. There are enough random elements entering the play anyway, so I prefer to have control over those that are deterministic. Guidelines which are as clear as possible shouldn't harm anyone.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cezanne

[+cheech gang]

I had to go to the emergency room this afternoon for seven stitches due to biting my tongue while reading this.

[+Team Microdot]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

 

Do you insist on completely predicatable outcomes for all aspects of your life, or just in connection with the geocaching events that you will probably never organise?

 

It's not a question of insistence, but yes wherever possible I prefer it that way to the extent possible. There are enough random elements entering the play anyway, so I prefer to have control over those that are deterministic. Guidelines which are as clear as possible shouldn't harm anyone.

 

That must be a real limitation in your life, debilitating even.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

 

Do you insist on completely predicatable outcomes for all aspects of your life, or just in connection with the geocaching events that you will probably never organise?

 

It's not a question of insistence, but yes wherever possible I prefer it that way to the extent possible. There are enough random elements entering the play anyway, so I prefer to have control over those that are deterministic. Guidelines which are as clear as possible shouldn't harm anyone.

 

That must be a real limitation in your life, debilitating even.

 

And not very fun.

[+cheech gang]

“For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't understand, no explanation is possible”

[+NeverSummer]

Only if you do end up trying to make your event work will you know that it will work.

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

 

Do you insist on completely predicatable outcomes for all aspects of your life, or just in connection with the geocaching events that you will probably never organise?

01010010 01100101 01101101 01100101 01101101 01100010 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 00100001

[knowschad]

Isn't it time for this thread to be shut down? Its becoming embarrassing.

[+NeverSummer]

Try this on:

 

 

Might not be absolutely perfect, but it certainly covers the 5 criteria, and then goes on to deal with "moving" events.

[knowschad]

Try this on:

 

 

Might not be absolutely perfect, but it certainly covers the 5 criteria, and then goes on to deal with "moving" events.

 

[cezanne]

Might not be absolutely perfect, but it certainly covers the 5 criteria, and then goes on to deal with "moving" events.

 

But it does not cover at all the unclear points, including e.g. the issue of entrance fees which I really try to understand in connection with events. Up to the point when it has been mentioned here that there exist events in the US in parks that require an entrance fee, I thought that the strict interpretation for events meanwhile has become standard but this does not seem to be the case. When rereading the event guidelines, I wondered in particular how I could refer to some places along the way (as in the walking tour event suggestion) without violating the commercial guidelines when interpreted in the strict manner. Of course one only could refer to coordinates, but that is very unconvenient for the attendants.

 

So the difficulty lies in the details. Without understanding the above, how can you be sure to obtain the same answer to the commercial question than the reviewer?

 

Right now it appears that a very huge percentage of event submissions need rewriting and this despite the fact that events are

hardly hosted by beginners. The ideal situation would be that the very big majority of event (also other cache submissions) are

publishable as they are. I do not that this cannot be achieved, but at least I do not wish to end up with having to rewrite a cache description. It feels like needing help in an exam when not being properly prepared. (Yes, I know submitting caches is not an exam.)

It should explain why a guideline clearer in some aspects and above all the chance to ask questions and to receive answers before/without actually submitting a cache would be very appreciated by me.

Edited March 19, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

Might not be absolutely perfect, but it certainly covers the 5 criteria, and then goes on to deal with "moving" events.

 

But it does not cover at all the unclear points, including e.g. the issue of entrance fees which I really try to understand in connection with events. Up to the point when it has been mentioned here that there exist events in the US in parks that require an entrance fee, I thought that the strict interpretation for events meanwhile has become standard but this does not seem to be the case. When rereading the event guidelines, I wondered in particular how I could refer to some places along the way (as in the walking tour event suggestion) without violating the commercial guidelines when interpreted in the strict manner. Of course one only could refer to coordinates, but that is very unconvenient for the attendants.

 

So the difficulty lies in the details. Without understanding the above, how can you be sure to obtain the same answer to the commercial question than the reviewer?

 

Right now it appears that a very huge percentage of event submissions need rewriting and this despite the fact that events are

hardly hosted by beginners. The ideal situation would be that the very big majority of event (also other cache submissions) are

publishable as they are. I do not that this cannot be achieved, but at least I do not wish to end up with having to rewrite a cache description. It feels like needing help in an exam when not being properly prepared. (Yes, I know submitting caches is not an exam.)

It should explain why a guideline clearer in some aspects and above all the chance to ask questions and to receive answers before/without actually submitting a cache would be very appreciated by me.

Entrance fees: Discuss with your Reviewer if concerned. An email will suffice.

Difficult details? Discuss with your Reviewer if confused. An email will suffice.

 

PROVE IT that there is "a very huge percentage of event submissions" that "need rewriting".

 

Follow the flow chart, and your event should be published. If you are positive that a fee being charged for admission is not a commercial endorsement for a company, then you should be fine. Generally speaking, in the USA, a fee for a non- or not-for-profit business, park system, etc. is regarded as "non-commercial". Meaning, a county, city, state, federal park that charges a fee at a gate would not be commercial. A skating rink at a city, county, regional, state park which charges a fee for entrance might be commercial, so you should clarify with your Reviewer to be sure. Appeals can help work WITH you and your Reviewer on the question.

 

Cezanne, you have all of these needs for clarity which can only be answered with a direct question to Reviewers and Groundspeak on a SPECIFIC CASE. Just as Appeals did not respond until I had an actual cache to discuss, you're NOT going to get any answers unless you submit an event and discuss with your Reviewer and/or Appeals about why a cache should/should not be publishable under the guidelines.

 

You ask, ad nauseum, all of these specific, detailed questions which CAN ONLY BE ANSWERED with an actual case brought to Groundspeak. Ask them, but they'll only respond to REAL circumstances, NOT HYPOTHETICALS--which you are so adept at coming up with.

[+NeverSummer]

In addition, on the OFF TOPIC question about fees and commercial caches, perhaps a Lackey could take the 20 minutes (that's how long my flowchart took to create) to put together a flow chart for commercial caches/commercial event caches?

 

Certainly would help know what is/isn't considered commercial in general terms.

 

Of course, each cache would have to be Reviewed by volunteers and/or Appeals on its own merits/details of the submission; we'd be grasping at straws to try and be exhaustive when talking about GUIDELINES.

[knowschad]

In addition, on the OFF TOPIC question about fees and commercial caches, perhaps a Lackey could take the 20 minutes (that's how long my flowchart took to create

 

Roughly 800 posts to this thread alone. Rough estimate is 1/3 at least are yours. How much of your life are you willing to dedicate to trying to convince one person that the sky is not falling?

 

This thread really really really is in need of moderator intervention. If mercy killing was ever justified, it is this thread. Moderation is needed here.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Are we still going around and around on this? The same arguments, the same bullet points, the same pulling of hair because the other side just won't see the correct point of view or understand the differences in culture? I agree that it's time to put this thread out of its misery. Not all that much has been gained from it and it really doesn't look anything more can be gained going forward, unless people want to continue to argue for arguments sake.

[+thebruce0]

[cezanne]

In addition, on the OFF TOPIC question about fees and commercial caches, perhaps a Lackey could take the 20 minutes (that's how long my flowchart took to create) to put together a flow chart for commercial caches/commercial event caches?

 

I do not see why it is off topic as fees play a role in some hiking and other moving events too, as does mentioning locations.

You argued your flow chart simplifies something and I disagree.

[cezanne]

This thread really really really is in need of moderator intervention. If mercy killing was ever justified, it is this thread. Moderation is needed here.

 

What do we win by that? The thread is not insulting and those who do not care about, just could easily ignore it. It's not one of those cases where a newbie comes here and is getting discouraged.

 

While indeed repetitions occur, there are still some postings which bring up new things (e.g. from my point of view the suggestion about a walking tour event yesterday and there also have been other posts within the last days from which at least I profited, including some postings by coachstahly).

 

Well, of course it will never happen that NeverSummer and I agree on the large picture because we are too different, but who cares? I appreciate the input of some of those who have a lot of experience with outdoor events with moving activities and I cannot see that another thread would be better to deal with this.

Edited March 19, 2015 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Cezanne, you have all of these needs for clarity which can only be answered with a direct question to Reviewers and Groundspeak on a SPECIFIC CASE. Just as Appeals did not respond until I had an actual cache to discuss, you're NOT going to get any answers unless you submit an event and discuss with your Reviewer and/or Appeals about why a cache should/should not be publishable under the guidelines.

 

You ask, ad nauseum, all of these specific, detailed questions which CAN ONLY BE ANSWERED with an actual case brought to Groundspeak. Ask them, but they'll only respond to REAL circumstances, NOT HYPOTHETICALS--which you are so adept at coming up with.

 

It indeed happens to be the case that they only reply if a specific cache listing is discussed and that's exactly what I find difficult to handle. I would prefer if one could ask questions independently of a cache listing and they tried to explain their interpretation. It is clear that they cannot provide guarantees without having a concrete cache listing.

 

Of course I have to accept how Groundspeak deals with this, it makes it more difficult however for some cachers and I'm sure that overall it also contributes to increasing the reviewers' work load.

 

Some questions could be addressed once and for all. Others of course can't be dealt with in this easy manner.

 

I guess it depends a lot on a person's personality. I appreciate that the reviewers try to work with the cachers to get caches (including events) published. In this process however of course often essential things have to be changed. I'm someone who rather would decide not to own a cache that does not fit to what I have in mind than to work with a compromise I do not like (for that reason I have not implemented some of my ideas for both physical caches and events). So understanding the details *before* submitting a cache/event is important to me while apparently it is not to you as you seem to be much more flexible with respect to the outcome and are still happy with it.

 

My questions about hiking events and moving events in general are all sincere and not just to discuss.

Edited March 19, 2015 by cezanne

[+coachstahly]

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

What is the ONLY way to prove a theory? By applying your theory to real life tests to make observations and see if your theory is confirmed. You're not willing to do so on a personal level. The judgment of a reviewer is unclear but the ONLY way to get clarity is to apply it to a real life test. We've provided examples and ways of creating an event, which reviewers have actually published, that REQUIRE the activity you so desire, be it kayak/canoe/swim/float to the event or a hike to the event. We've provided examples of events where entrance fees are allowed. NeverSummer even attempted to prove, on your behalf, that you might be able to get an event created that would meet your specific theory of what an event should be, which was proven false based on the criteria that bounds an event. Yet, our attempts to show you your theory is false has not changed your mind at all and you do nothing to provide concrete examples to prove your theory to be true.

 

The only certainties in life are death and taxes. I think I can now add that cezanne will never fully be happy with an event again. There's no sense in me making any more comments because this is all theoretical to cezanne and will NEVER be put to practical use and a theoretical debate can rage on forever if the one postulating the theory never attempts to prove it. I'll check in occasionally, but it's my guess that the 25th page will look a lot like the (pick a page).

[+NeverSummer]

Ah, waiter! Thank you for my check. Have a wonderful day!

[cezanne]

 

Actually that's a very unsatisfactory approach for a theory person. When I hide a physical cache I also check in advance that it will work out. I do not like surprises in this regard.

 

There are so many aspects that depend on judgement, like e.g. whether an ice skating event where entrance fees have to be paid is seen as commercial. That's so far from clear cut rules.

What is the ONLY way to prove a theory? By applying your theory to real life tests to make observations and see if your theory is confirmed.

You're not willing to do so on a personal level.

 

I guess we talk about different levels.

 

My concern that the new guidelines will even further reduce the number of events hosted in my country which are of interest to me and within my abilities is not something I can prove in any active way.

I can only mention examples of events that will not take place in the future.

 

There is also nothing to prove or disprove with respect that hosting an event in my preferred way does not work since that's evidently true. Some of the ideas presented here are better suited to lead to compromises I might be able to live with even when I certainly do not like them when I would have to use them as event host (and not as participant).

 

My remark about the theory person was meant differently. I prefer to first study the rules/manuals etc before starting off with the practical part and I like to start with a full understanding. Of course it can happen that I overlook something which might cause a concern for a reviewer, but when already when reading many parts of the guidelines I'm not sure that I understand their exact meaning, I'm not motivated to give it a try at all. It's like a trial and error approach which is not very elegant and only tiresome.

 

The judgment of a reviewer is unclear but the ONLY way to get clarity is to apply it to a real life test.

 

When I want to understand the guidelines, the individual judgement of a certain reviewer on a certain day is not the most relevant.

 

Yes, I know there are no precedents, but I regard it as helpful to have a good understanding what is ok and what not and not what works for a

particular reviewer.

 

For example, if there existed a way to rescue the ice skating event such that worked as hoped for by the event host, I would tell her about and she might reconsider her

decision to organize the next event outside of gc.com.

 

NeverSummer even attempted to prove, on your behalf, that you might be able to get an event created that would meet your specific theory of what an event should be, which was proven false based on the criteria that bounds an event.

 

Actually, I was pretty much convinced of the outcome right from the beginning.

 

And I still do not understand at all why they could not reply to such a simple question without getting an actual submission.

 

It's like when I ask how to use a certain complex tool and only get the answer if I show up and let me them see how I handle the tool without instructions.

 

Yet, our attempts to show you your theory is false has not changed your mind at all and you do nothing to provide concrete examples to prove your theory to be true.

 

Which theory?

The conjecture that in my area a lower number of events that are attractive to me will show up due to the changed rules?

 

My main point was not that the new guidelines do not allow for events that are attractive to me, but they provide many barriers to those who previously got events in a different style published and who are

not motivated to be as flexible as it would be required.

 

I think I can now add that cezanne will never fully be happy with an event again.

 

Then you are more certain about something than I'm. It will depend a lot on which events show up and where.

In any case the events that I liked the most took place in a terrain setting where I never could be the event host. So the larger role is played by those

who are able to host such events and have previously done so and stopped or will stop to so. Those people certainly will not come to this forum.

[+cheech gang]

Move along, there is nothing more to see here, please return to your homes.

[+thebruce0]

*eyes. glazing. over*

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

And I still do not understand at all why they could not reply to such a simple question without getting an actual submission.

 

Send your reviewer the question/concern you have. If they are worth their salt, they will respond. I know my local reviewer is more than willing to work with me when I try something out of the "norm".

[cezanne]

 

And I still do not understand at all why they could not reply to such a simple question without getting an actual submission.

 

Send your reviewer the question/concern you have. If they are worth their salt, they will respond. I know my local reviewer is more than willing to work with me when I try something out of the "norm".

 

If someone is really has a very original new idea this is a very good suggestion. Otherwise, I tend to think that asking for the precise meaning of some guideline sections and getting a reply at a more public place would be helpful for many cachers. There are so many aspects where the guidelines are not as clear as they could be (also with respect to issues that play no role for events, like e.g. the download of files). It appears to me to happen more and more often that the reviewers are provided with extra guidance on how to interpret the guidelines while the cachers are not which somehow seems to be a strange one-sided approach.

 

Apart from everything else, it might also be a cultural difference. I've read this phrase "working with the reviewer" numerous times in this forum, but never something equivalent in several other country specific geocaching forums outside of the English speaking world. I still think that what every cacher should try to achieve is a cache submission where no changes are required. If course in order to have a decent chance for that one needs to fully understand the guidelines.