Jump to content

Hiking Events


HikingSeal
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I do not see a lot of support for the decision in this thread, I'm neither for nor against the change as GS has not stated the reason they made it so I can't judge. I think this thread is more about the confusion of cezanne's reaction to the change than anything else.

 

I do not agree. Keep in mind that the event has been started by a cacher who until recently was able to host real hiking events.

I'd say that there are at least three groups in this thread. Those who really miss real hiking events, those who question why moving events are not allowed and those who defend that with workarounds almost all is possible. I belong to both the first and the second group.

My key issue is not with the 30 minutes time limit, just with the combination of all changes in the event guidelines and the reviewing practice of events.

Link to comment

Basically, GS wants all events to be parties. No other kind of event is to be allowed. If you want to take a hike or go rafting, those activities must happen after the 30 minute party is over. I'm not sure why they're so intent to limit events to parties, but obviously from the discussion on this thread, they have a lot of support.

They're asking for them to be an opportunity to socialize. That can still mean a hike, raft, or whatever. You simply have to demonstrate that the 30-minute window where the event can be found at the stated coordinates is clear. Events can be longer, but not shorter than 30 minutes. Events can include other activities, they only ask that you also include coordinates for the site if it is away from the listed coordinates.

 

Reviewers make the call; the interpretation is up to them, and one can work with a Reviewer to be sure that what they'd like to list on Groundspeak's website passes muster. I see nowhere that a hike, bike, raft, or whatever couldn't be published and enjoyed by all who attend.

 

Edit to add:

 

When you go to the movies, you see the starting time. That start time might be, say, 7:00pm. The movie, however, does not start until the previews and silly refreshments video plays. Most people choose to go to the movie at 7:00, and still enjoy the movie that starts at 7:30... and if you hate the previews, you can arrive later for the feature. And if you're running late, you might miss the beginning, but you can still get in the door to see the film.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I do not see a lot of support for the decision in this thread, I'm neither for nor against the change as GS has not stated the reason they made it so I can't judge. I think this thread is more about the confusion of cezanne's reaction to the change than anything else.

 

I do not agree. Keep in mind that the event has been started by a cacher who until recently was able to host real hiking events.

I'd say that there are at least three groups in this thread. Those who really miss real hiking events, those who question why moving events are not allowed and those who defend that with workarounds almost all is possible. I belong to both the first and the second group.

My key issue is not with the 30 minutes time limit, just with the combination of all changes in the event guidelines and the reviewing practice of events.

So, again, we're back to your experience with cognitive dissonance. You've found that the way events were published in your area were "slipping through the cracks", and that may or may not have been on purpose with the listing owner and/or the Reviewer.

 

"Real hiking events" can still exist.

 

"Moving events" were technically never aligned with the guidelines, and that fact is being clarified with Reviewers and players.

 

With "workarounds", most ideas and plans for events are still possible, and always have been.

 

Tell me again where the problem is? Oh wait...control. Personal gratification. Making others do what you want them to do at an event, and nothing else.

 

Oh, and to clarify for you, "inclusive" events mean leaving it open for any interested to attend. "Exclusive" events are ones where you instead set up intentional or unintentional barriers which might keep others from attending. Welcoming with open arms, versus having a "bouncer". Trying to leave the door open, versus closing it before some others can come inside.

Link to comment
"Exclusive" events are ones where you instead set up intentional or unintentional barriers which might keep others from attending. Welcoming with open arms, versus having a "bouncer". Trying to leave the door open, versus closing it before some others can come inside.

And before the response comes about events halfway along a trail you have to hike to as being 'exclusive' to those who don't want to hike - technically no. People can arrive at the event however they want - the easiest way of course would be to hike, maybe, but it's not restricted by the listing. Someone could helicopter in :P they could bike, ATV, run, camp out, whatever floats their goat. Point being, the event is still in one place for 30+ minutes, indicating that people will hike in and out, but the hike isn't (and cannot) be required in order to attend the event (even if it does happen to be the easiest if not the only way to get there). The only requirement, again, is that there is something happening at the posted coordinates (someone is there), wherever the coordinates are, for at least 30 minutes. It really is an extremely simple concept.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
When you go to the movies, you see the starting time. That start time might be, say, 7:00pm. The movie, however, does not start until the previews and silly refreshments video plays. Most people choose to go to the movie at 7:00, and still enjoy the movie that starts at 7:30... and if you hate the previews, you can arrive later for the feature. And if you're running late, you might miss the beginning, but you can still get in the door to see the film.
And when you buy tickets on a murder mystery dinner train, you arrive at the departure location by the stated time, travel on the train for 3 hours enjoying dinner and the murder mystery, and eventually return to the departure location. Most people choose to arrive early so they don't miss the train. If you arrive after departure, then you'll need to try to catch another murder mystery dinner train at a later date.
Link to comment

 

Tell me again where the problem is? Oh wait...control. Personal gratification. Making others do what you want them to do at an event, and nothing else.

 

 

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Good grief, these are geocaching events. It's not the military. You don't have to arrive at the exact minute or risk being left behind. Does it really ruin your fun if you have to wait a whole half an hour before beginning your hike/paddle/trip? That's pretty much grasping at things to be upset about.

Link to comment
So I wonder why the choose the path they did.

To me, you've answered your own question. The new clarification "bans" simple 5-minute drop in/drive by events, and asks that listing owners and hosts are more deliberate about how they will facilitate socialization. Meaning, all they need to do is allow for a little more time for those who might be late, might want to meet other cachers but otherwise wouldn't be willing or able to go out hiking or skating or whatever, etc.

 

To allow for more socialization, and to open the door to the uninitiated, a 5-minute flash mob isn't very attractive or conducive to socialization for a noob. To make it more possible to meet and get to know others, the guideline opens the window further to make sure that duration isn't a deterrent. It can be argued that 30 minutes might be a deterrent for cezanne and friends, but we've shown that there are ways to get around it clearly in the cache description etc. E.g., one can just show up for the few minutes prior to departure if they don't want the "boring parking lot", and the noob can show at the beginning and have a chance to meet more people, and the non-hiker can still meet and chat with others before they depart up the trail.

 

Pure speculation here, but I wouldn't be surprised that there haven't been requests for 60 1-minute flash mob "events" over an hour's time and stuff like that. I'm guessing at least some of it comes down to reviewers having to put too much effort into that sort of thing, much in the same way that reviewers put their collective feet down when it comes to bringing virtuals back. But again... just my own little guess.

 

You could be right. It's all about the smiley. Maybe someone at Groundspeak does think that attending a five minute event is a cheap way of getting a WooHoo! another smiley. I've found the few flash mobs I've been to enjoyable and more than enough time to socialize and even introduce myself to new cachers. I find this much harder to do at crowded restaurants where it's usually too noisy to have a conversation and not even clear who are the geocachers and who are other diners (even when we reserve a room). But perhaps a bigger sample of flash mobs will show there are just as lame as pizza and beer.

 

I don't think there have been 60 flash mobs in 60 minutes because the event stacking rules could be use to stop that. But maybe there have been 20 flash mobs over a ten hour period with a half hour between each to get from one to another (and no doubt they were arranged to form geoart).

 

In a different thread I've already threatened to stop logging finds because some Groundspeak lackey wrote that the online log is in order to get a smiley. It seems like the people who in yet another thread complain about short logs are the ones who are supporting the minimal event time. I hope we can agree that Groundspeak should be more thoughtful in providing reasons to sign the physical log and log online, or attend an event, and not promote the view of the find count that leads to all the angst in the forums.

 

In the other thread on this topic, Keystone got so irritated when I suggested this change is due to someone concerned that flash mobs shouldn't be worth a smiley that he said he wouldn't answer me anymore (ever) - and he went further by adding the acronym I use to refer to what I see as a misinterpretation of the find log to the forum profanity filter. I'm not sure if perhaps I shouldn't take hope from Keystone's reaction that the reason for this change isn't the find count.

 

I think that Groundspeak really believe their official reason. And I really believe that five minutes is plenty of time to make meaningful connections- especially when the five minutes are followed by a 3 hour hike. In that case we have a disagreement over how people socialize and form connections - which I'm more comfortable with than a disagreement on what the find count is for.

Link to comment

"Moving events" were technically never aligned with the guidelines, and that fact is being clarified with Reviewers and players.

 

That's definitely wrong.

 

Have a look at e.g. what the guidelines said in April 2005

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

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

 

Oh, and to clarify for you, "inclusive" events mean leaving it open for any interested to attend. "Exclusive" events are ones where you instead set up intentional or unintentional barriers which might keep others from attending. Welcoming with open arms, versus having a "bouncer". Trying to leave the door open, versus closing it before some others can come inside.

 

It'd say that if you argue that way forcing everyone to hold a restaurant event at a handicapped accessible location would play a larger role than having a 30 minutes period at a parking lot for a hiking event where this meeting time is definitely not intended to be the event and lots of people will show up later or use the time slot for preparation. The essential part of the socializing and all what the event is about will happen later and not in this period of time which is rather like a the registration time at a conference. Except the people at the registration desk and the persons who want to register at that moment noone needs to be there.

A get together at a conference is also not compulsory, but it's a whole lot different than the availability of a registration desk.

 

Of course one can use the workaround, but in my opinion it goes beyond the spirit if this period is not planned for socializing, but is just there because it needs to be there. It is equally absurd to enforce socializing and a welcoming atmosphere for every attendant during the enforced 30 minutes period when the real event is thought to be the group activity. However I look at it, it is a pretty lame concept in those settings where it is enforced and where it's not part of the original idea.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The only requirement, again, is that there is something happening at the posted coordinates (someone is there), wherever the coordinates are, for at least 30 minutes. It really is an extremely simple concept.

 

Yes, it is simple in particular when it comes to defining a rule for attended logs and one could even check automatically whether an event is satisfies the above requirements. No human being is necessary for that while for more involved concepts a human being is needed in any case.

 

It does not mean however that the concept is the best way to define meaningful geocaching events. Previous versions of the guidelines did a better job in my opinion.

I said it before: a geocaching event is not a registration desk type facility.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Have a look at e.g. what the guidelines said in April 2005

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town's fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

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

Yep. I don't see how that description allows for moving events - where the event itself is no longer at the posted coordinates after its start time.

 

The only difference I can see in that is where the posted coordinates would be located, compared to today's rules.

Today, the posted coordinates would be at the "single event" at the dinner location, for at least 30 minutes (or somewhere else people will be for at least 30 mintues), and none of the other activities in the day would be required for attendance. But everything else would still be doable. I don't see the above rules allowing an event to be published at a posted coordinate with no time period and having people leave for a hike at the specific time never to return there. And if reviewers did allow it, then they do not allow it today.

Your comment didn't help your case.

 

It is equally absurd to enforce socializing and a welcoming atmosphere for every attendant during the enforced 30 minutes period when the real event is thought to be the group activity.

Then don't make it be the "real event". Because it shouldn't be. Groundspeak wouldn't allow it to be. You can work around the rules, but you can't work around the spirit of the event; Groundspeak will not like it if you try to "cheat" the system. The Event Listing is not to be a moving event, and it is not to be for the purpose of finding geocaches. The reviewer likely will not publish it if they feel your actual intent for the event is to organize a moving event (which for all they know could be a group-caching event).

If the reviewers accepts your event listing and publishes it, it's already determined that the host's intent for the event is a gathering available at the posted coordinates for the set period of time to do something related to geocaching - not any supplementary moving activity that takes place outside of the event period. You can trick them and edit your listing after it's published - I do not recommend it. You can say you're going on a hike after 30 minutes of prep time, but if you imply that no one will be there until the end, or I'd even guess that if you imply the 30 minutes is not important and nothing will done during that time, even if you'll be there, the reviewer may choose not to publish your cache - because it sounds like the event is explicitly for the hike. Does that parking lot meeting for 30 minutes fit the time rules? Sure. Does it satisfy the other subjective points about what the event should be about? That depends on your reviewer. I know some reviewers in my area would likely not publish a simple 30 minute 'prep' event for a hike, just to get around the rules.

It's all in how you present your event. Not strictly in its content. Satisfy the rules, and convince your reviewer of the subjective elements of the requirements, and you are Good To Go.

 

If you cannot make the intent for your event to at least provide a gathering of geocachers at the posted coordinates for 30 minutes or more, then the Event Listing is not the appropriate platform on which to host the type of activity you want to host, on Groundspeak's Geocaching.com Listing Service.

 

Yep, that sucks if you want to host ONLY a hike leaving spot on a time having no static location for 30 minutes. But that is NOT the purpose of the Event Listing on Geocaching.com.

Yep, that sucks if that's the only type of event you WANT to attend but they can't be published any more in that precise form and the people who used to publish them (however it was determined they were allowable) have decided to take their ball and go home; But that is NOT the purpose of the Event Listing on Geocaching.com.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I said it before: a geocaching event is not a registration desk type facility.

Who said it was?

A geocaching event, as listed on Groundspeak's listing service, requires someone (host or deligate, but the person isn't practically enforceable) to be at the posted coordinates or its vicinity for the duration of the event. To verify that it is actually a real event. That's the intent. That's the purpose. If no one needs to be there to verify there is an event going on, you just opened a HUUUUGE can of worms. This is why the event must be stationary (this is not a new rule) and for at least 30 minutes (this the new rule, which they deemed more relevant to facilitating the type of event they want listed on geocaching.com).

Simple. Concept.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Maybe cezanne could organize a trail work day and post it as a CITO? Some advantages:

 

1. It's not stationary.

2. Slower pace, so you get to mingle more.

3. Give back to the Parks, resulting in improved relations.

 

Sounds like a win-win-win!

 

Great cardio workout too :)

Link to comment

Tell me again where the problem is? Oh wait...control. Personal gratification. Making others do what you want them to do at an event, and nothing else.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Good grief, these are geocaching events. It's not the military. You don't have to arrive at the exact minute or risk being left behind. Does it really ruin your fun if you have to wait a whole half an hour before beginning your hike/paddle/trip? That's pretty much grasping at things to be upset about.

I think you've accurately expressed the GS mentality, but I still don't understand it. Why do we have to prevent the CO from insisting people show up on time? Why is it bad for an event to include activities like kayaking just because some people don't kayak? Yes, it's not the military, so why are the event requirements so full of military precision about what an event has to be like?

 

I don't think there have been 60 flash mobs in 60 minutes because the event stacking rules could be use to stop that. But maybe there have been 20 flash mobs over a ten hour period with a half hour between each to get from one to another (and no doubt they were arranged to form geoart).

I assume you brought up this example because the current guidelines would still allow it, but I thought I'd point that out explicitly.

 

A geocaching event, as listed on Groundspeak's listing service, requires someone (host or deligate, but the person isn't practically enforceable) to be at the posted coordinates or its vicinity for the duration of the event.

I feel so stupid, but could you point me to the text in the guidelines that requires someone to be at the posted coordinates? The lack of an actual requirement for what happens at GZ for the allotted time is the main thing I'm confused about.

Link to comment

Yep. I don't see how that description allows for moving events - where the event itself is no longer at the posted coordinates after its start time.

 

First, there was no mention of at the posted coordinates and second, they even mentioned group cache hunts with regard to

geocaching events. have you ever been on a cache hunt that took place at a fixed set of coordinates?

 

Today, the posted coordinates would be at the "single event" at the dinner location, for at least 30 minutes (or somewhere else people will be for at least 30 mintues), and none of the other activities in the day would be required for attendance. But everything else would still be doable. I don't see the above rules allowing an event to be published at a posted coordinate with no time period and having people leave for a hike at the specific time never to return there. And if reviewers did allow it, then they do not allow it today.

 

Of course the rules allowed it. Also the requirement to provide an end time for the event has been added much later.

 

The big difference between now and then is that now the event is the sedentary 30 minutes period and everything else is happening outside of the event.

 

As I have written already several times I could live much better with a rule that every event has to include a period of at least 30 minutes (with given start and end times) which takes place at the posted coordinates, but whatever happens outside of the period is also part of the event. I would compare this period to registration hours for a conference.

 

 

It is equally absurd to enforce socializing and a welcoming atmosphere for every attendant during the enforced 30 minutes period when the real event is thought to be the group activity.

Then don't make it be the "real event". Because it shouldn't be. Groundspeak wouldn't allow it to be.

 

But if the hike is not the real event and the meeting period at the parking lot is the real event, then very lame events result and the variety of nice events gets dramatically reduced.

 

You can work around the rules, but you can't work around the spirit of the event; Groundspeak will not like it if you try to "cheat" the system.

 

I still do not understand why socializing during a physical activity is against the spirit of an event and why it should be cheating.

But what you wrote reinforces my opinion that those who do not use the workaround and rather refrain from organizing hiking events via gc.com at all make the right decision.

 

 

The Event Listing is not to be a moving event, and it is not to be for the purpose of finding geocaches.

 

I have already written numerous times that I do not like any combination of geocaching events and searching for caches. All workarounds which have been suggested in this thread allow for more geocaching activities than I appreciate in connection with a hiking event.

 

The reviewer likely will not publish it if they feel your actual intent for the event is to organize a moving event (which for all they know could be a group-caching event).

 

So why should the reviewers make this assumption? They could as well assume that all newly hidden caches in a forest area are burried caches just because there exist burried caches.

 

 

If the reviewers accepts your event listing and publishes it, it's already determined that the host's intent for the event is a gathering available at the posted coordinates for the set period of time to do something related to geocaching - not any supplementary moving activity that takes place outside of the event period.

 

So you provide a perfect argument for not using the workaround. I prefer to be authentic and sincere and so you would have to agree that under these premises hiking events are not possible.

It is not my intent to trick anyone, but neither myself nor many other fans of hiking events have the intent to offer a gathering at the posted coordinates.

I can live with the idea to provide a time interval for those who come late and to allow logging for those who come during that interval and do not join the activity taking place afterwards or before the time interval. I cannot live however with the expectation that the enforced static period has to be the real intent of the event host. It effectively means that a type of event that many appreciate gets banned.

 

Keep in mind that I have never been among those suggesting the workaround. I think it is too much to expect that someone who enjoys hiking events will regard the meeting period as the part he/she enjoys and looks forward to. Moreover the host cannot influence how many event participants will show up when. A time interval for meeting does not imply that one is expected to arrive at the start time. When it's only the host who is there for 30 minutes and everyone else arrives whenever he/she wants this of course is hardly something meeting the true spirit of a geocaching event, but perfectly ok if the intended event activity is a hike that takes a few hours.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

I think you've accurately expressed the GS mentality, but I still don't understand it. Why do we have to prevent the CO from insisting people show up on time? Why is it bad for an event to include activities like kayaking just because some people don't kayak? Yes, it's not the military, so why are the event requirements so full of military precision about what an event has to be like?

 

 

Could the motivation for he "stationary" and "distinct start/end times" be to protect attendees?

 

Old guidelines allowed a person to post an event as "We will start around 12:00, and hike the trail." So, if I showed up after 12, and hiked the trail, could I claim it? A controlling event host may have deleted the "Attended".

 

With the new guidelines, if a person shows up at the posted location, during the posted times, they can claim the "Attended", and the host cannot delete the log.

 

Just a thought.

 

[edit: typos]

Edited by BBWolf+3Pigs
Link to comment

Of course the rules allowed it.

 

This, to me, demonstrates the error of your argument. I submitted a kayaking Event many many years ago which was rejected for a couple of reasons:

 

1. The cost to those folks that had to rent a kayak in order to participate.

2. It was not at a fixed location.

 

In the interim time period, it was obvious that things were relaxed a bit on this notion, and Events like you describe have been Published.

 

To my way of thinking and experience, things are merely going back to the way they were intended, before the activity BECAME the Event.

 

Your protestations to contrary are merely amusing at this point :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Of course the rules allowed it.

 

This, to me, demonstrates the error of your argument. I submitted a kayaking Event many many years ago which was rejected for a couple of reasons:

 

When? Prior to April 2005? I used in my quote the rules from early 2005 when even group caching hunts were mentioned in the guidelines and not excluded which happened

at a later point of time. There might have been a period where some reviewers already started to be more strict than the guidelines have been at that point. It would not be the first time

that rule changes happened with some lag in time. The point I was trying to make is that it definitely has not been part of the guidelines right from the beginning of events that events cannot move.

It's completely impossible to have group caching hunts without moving and grooup caching hunts are mentioned in the early 2005 version of the event guidelines I quoted.

 

As the cost argument is regarded that was used in your case, it confirms my feeling that there always has been a big diversity as to how reviewers acted when it came to publishing events. In particular, the part "for all geocachers" is something which is quite open to interpretation (with the old guidelines and also with the current ones).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Could the motivation for he "stationary" and "distinct start/end times" be to protect attendees?

 

Old guidelines allowed a person to post an event as "We will start around 12:00, and hike the trail." So, if I showed up after 12, and hiked the trail, could I claim it? A controlling event host may have deleted the "Attended".

 

With the new guidelines, if a person shows up at the posted location, during the posted times, they can claim the "Attended", and the host cannot delete the log.

I have a feeling you're right, but I still don't get it: why should a rule be designed specifically to prevent the CO from insisting you're on time? Why is it so important that anyone that could possibly want to claim that they attended be allowed to do so even if they refuse to show up on time? The attendee has a very simple way to protect themselves: they can just not show up.

Link to comment

 

Could the motivation for he "stationary" and "distinct start/end times" be to protect attendees?

 

I would rather call it protect "attended logs". What you write boils down to what I suspect as well. The rules focus on attended logs and event listings and not on the events itself.

Meanwhile it apparently became number one priority to have an easy rule when attended logs are allowed and an easy rule for when events can be published. Having nice events of many different kinds is less important.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Of course the rules allowed it.

 

This, to me, demonstrates the error of your argument. I submitted a kayaking Event many many years ago which was rejected for a couple of reasons:

 

When? Prior to April 2005? I used in my quote the rules from early 2005 when even group caching hunts were mentioned in the guidelines and not excluded which happened

at a later point of time. There might have been a period where some reviewers already started to be more strict than the guidelines have been at that point. It would not be the first time

that rule changes happened with some lag in time. The point I was trying to make is that it definitely has not been part of the guidelines right from the beginning of events that events cannot move.

It's completely impossible to have group caching hunts without moving and grooup caching hunts are mentioned in the early 2005 version of the event guidelines I quoted.

 

As the cost argument is regarded that was used in your case, it confirms my feeling that there always has been a big diversity as to how reviewers acted when it came to publishing events. In particular, the part "for all geocachers" is something which is quite open to interpretation (with the old guidelines and also with the current ones).

Good guess! It was 2005, and the Reviewer suggested I turn it into a "breakfast" Event, which I did:

 

Koffee and Kayak

 

Kind of interesting looking at the "wayback machine"....those links to the kayak rental spots would have to be removed nowadays (i.e. links to commercial websites).

 

My guess is that it wasn't until around 2007 or so before Events were Published in my area like you describe and yearn for.

 

I appreciate that Groundspeak gave the concept a try, and not surprised in the least that it didn't work and they felt compelled to add this tiny addendum to the Guidelines.

 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Link to comment

Could the motivation for he "stationary" and "distinct start/end times" be to protect attendees?

 

Old guidelines allowed a person to post an event as "We will start around 12:00, and hike the trail." So, if I showed up after 12, and hiked the trail, could I claim it? A controlling event host may have deleted the "Attended".

 

With the new guidelines, if a person shows up at the posted location, during the posted times, they can claim the "Attended", and the host cannot delete the log.

I have a feeling you're right, but I still don't get it: why should a rule be designed specifically to prevent the CO from insisting you're on time? Why is it so important that anyone that could possibly want to claim that they attended be allowed to do so even if they refuse to show up on time? The attendee has a very simple way to protect themselves: they can just not show up.

 

Let's say the event at the local waterhole is listed as "From 6pm until ???". The host decides that he wants to leave at 8pm and someone shows up at 8:15pm (caught in traffic, had a car accident, etc). Can he claim it? Some hosts would say "No, I left at 8pm so that's when the event was over."

 

New rule prevent that. If the person is not there within the specified time, there's no questioning the host's decision to delete an "Attended" log.

Link to comment

Good guess! It was 2005, and the Reviewer suggested I turn it into a "breakfast" Event, which I did:

 

I did not check whether the December 2005 guidelines also mention group cache hunts for events like the version from April does.

 

My guess is that it wasn't until around 2007 or so before Events were Published in my area like you describe and yearn for.

 

Strange as they mention group cache hunts in earlier version and how could they take place without moving?

 

I rather understood it in the way that depending on the reviewer it could have been that a meeting period was asked for, but other (moving) activities could still be part of the event

which is not the case any longer.

 

In the case of your cayaking event it was possible to log the event without going for the cajak trip, but the way the cache page was written up, I ended up with the feeling that it would have been perfectly ok to skip the breakfast and take part only in the cajaking acvitiy and still be able to feel like complying with the spirit of the event and being a valuable attendant.

 

With the new rules I would not feel comfortable with logging an attended log if I only took part in the physical activity and maybe came just in time for the preparations and spent the time before the start off for getting prepared and not for socializing.

 

Do you get why it feels different to me?

 

Both from the point of view of the event host and the event participant I do not feel comfortable with having to declare a meeting period at the posted coordinates to be the actual event. I would prefer if the socializing that takes place during the event hike/paddle tour etc is also seen as a valuable way of socializing that is in perfect compliance with the spirit of events. I do not like to end up with a bad conscience if I do not use the workaround waiting period for socializing.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

"Moving events" were technically never aligned with the guidelines, and that fact is being clarified with Reviewers and players.

 

That's definitely wrong.

 

Have a look at e.g. what the guidelines said in April 2005

 

Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.

 

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

Definitely wrong? I don't see that... :blink:

 

See, this is where I can definitely state as fact that you had an experience apart from others with events in your neck of the woods. And so did many other people in many places across the globe. As with anything, there was variability, and each Reviewer in 2005 had a very large jurisdiction. Of those Reviewers, some either intentionally or unintentionally took liberties with the Guidelines. It wasn't to the detriment of the game, mind you, or to sabotage or define the "spirit" of the game. It was, quite simply, the early days of innovation and experimentation.

 

Now we're in a place where we need more clarification, and the Reviewers are held to a more standardized set of guidelines and more specific interpretation of the guidelines. This is based on experience and adjustment from "lessons learned", as well as Groundspeak essentially "putting their foot down" and calling the shots directly from the Lilypad.

 

Oh, and to clarify for you, "inclusive" events mean leaving it open for any interested to attend. "Exclusive" events are ones where you instead set up intentional or unintentional barriers which might keep others from attending. Welcoming with open arms, versus having a "bouncer". Trying to leave the door open, versus closing it before some others can come inside.

 

It'd say that if you argue that way forcing everyone to hold a restaurant event at a handicapped accessible location would play a larger role than having a 30 minutes period at a parking lot for a hiking event where this meeting time is definitely not intended to be the event and lots of people will show up later or use the time slot for preparation. The essential part of the socializing and all what the event is about will happen later and not in this period of time which is rather like a the registration time at a conference. Except the people at the registration desk and the persons who want to register at that moment noone needs to be there.

A get together at a conference is also not compulsory, but it's a whole lot different than the availability of a registration desk.

 

Of course one can use the workaround, but in my opinion it goes beyond the spirit if this period is not planned for socializing, but is just there because it needs to be there. It is equally absurd to enforce socializing and a welcoming atmosphere for every attendant during the enforced 30 minutes period when the real event is thought to be the group activity. However I look at it, it is a pretty lame concept in those settings where it is enforced and where it's not part of the original idea.

Oh. Good. Lord. :shocked:

Link to comment

Having nice events of many different kinds is less important.

 

But as I have shown, you can still host "nice events" of "different kinds" within the confines of the new guidelines.

 

To some degree yes, but in any case their variety is considerably reduced.

 

For example, having the meeting period mid way and not at the beginning makes it easier to come up with something meaningful, but on the other hand this requires a good estimate for the

time needed to reach that point. As a event host I would have to start at least an hour earlier as I would otherwise just to be sure not to end up with being late and then I would have to add that 1 hour to the duration of the meeting period and could in the worst case end up with quite a long time to be spend with sitting around which is not the nicest thing in particular if the weather is not so nice.

 

In any case, posts like the one by bruce0 leave me with the impression that events where the host is organizing the event due to the (moving activity) and not because the host enjoys breakfast/lunch etc events are not welcome - they can get published, but apparently they are not seen to be within the spirit of events and this hurts me the most.

Link to comment

...I ended up with the feeling that it would have been perfectly ok to skip the breakfast and take part only in the [k]cajaking acvitiy and still be able to feel like complying with the spirit of the event and being a valuable attendant.

 

There were indeed a small handful of people (generally the ones that owned their own kayaks), that met us at the boat launch area. Then, just like now, it is up to the Host(ess) to decide what that spirit is, not Groundspeak. I have yet to hear of Groundspeak demanding that Attended logs be removed in a fashion you suggest.

Link to comment

Yep. I don't see how that description allows for moving events - where the event itself is no longer at the posted coordinates after its start time.

 

First, there was no mention of at the posted coordinates and second, they even mentioned group cache hunts with regard to

geocaching events. have you ever been on a cache hunt that took place at a fixed set of coordinates?

 

Guess what? It doesn't matter. Those 2005 guidelines have been adjusted, updated, clarified, and rewritten a handful of times since then.

 

Guess what else? You've gotta follow the guidelines today, just as you would have if you had a time machine.

 

Guess what else what else? You can still have an event where you hike if you simply meet the guidelines for publication, and you've worked with your Reviewer to get it cleared for publication.

 

What in the dallgurn world is the problem, cezanne?

 

Trolling is really, really becoming the problem. <_<

Link to comment

Definitely wrong? I don't see that... :blink:

 

See, this is where I can definitely state as fact that you had an experience apart from others with events in your neck of the woods.

 

I did not rely at all on my personal experience - just on normal common sense. It would be completely absurd to mention group cache hunts in the event guidelines if they had not been feasible at some time as components of events and cache hunts move by definition.

Link to comment

Tell me again where the problem is? Oh wait...control. Personal gratification. Making others do what you want them to do at an event, and nothing else.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Good grief, these are geocaching events. It's not the military. You don't have to arrive at the exact minute or risk being left behind. Does it really ruin your fun if you have to wait a whole half an hour before beginning your hike/paddle/trip? That's pretty much grasping at things to be upset about.

I think you've accurately expressed the GS mentality, but I still don't understand it. Why do we have to prevent the CO from insisting people show up on time? Why is it bad for an event to include activities like kayaking just because some people don't kayak? Yes, it's not the military, so why are the event requirements so full of military precision about what an event has to be like?

 

Woah woah woah woah...

 

I'm sorry. "military precision"? A WINDOW of time is not precision. If the guidelines stated that you must show up at the specified time or you would not be allowed to log an "Attended" log...now that would be precision. What we have is a clarification which allows for less precision for attendees, and a simple clarification from the listing owner that they've allowed sufficient time to have a Groundspeak-endorsed Geocaching.com Event Cache listed on their website.

Link to comment

Yep. I don't see how that description allows for moving events - where the event itself is no longer at the posted coordinates after its start time.

 

First, there was no mention of at the posted coordinates and second, they even mentioned group cache hunts with regard to

geocaching events. have you ever been on a cache hunt that took place at a fixed set of coordinates?

 

Guess what? It doesn't matter. Those 2005 guidelines have been adjusted, updated, clarified, and rewritten a handful of times since then.

 

Yes, of course. I just wrote that it is not true that moving events have never been part of the event concept as someone claimed the contrary.

I never argued that moving events are feasible with respect to the current guidelines.

Link to comment

 

As I have written already several times I could live much better with a rule that every event has to include a period of at least 30 minutes (with given start and end times) which takes place at the posted coordinates, but whatever happens outside of the period is also part of the event. I would compare this period to registration hours for a conference.

 

Holy cat's meow! Cezanne! We've shown you TIME AND TIME AGAIN that you can have just that.

 

Now that you're satisfied, can you drop it?

Link to comment

...I ended up with the feeling that it would have been perfectly ok to skip the breakfast and take part only in the [k]cajaking acvitiy and still be able to feel like complying with the spirit of the event and being a valuable attendant.

 

There were indeed a small handful of people (generally the ones that owned their own kayaks), that met us at the boat launch area. Then, just like now, it is up to the Host(ess) to decide what that spirit is, not Groundspeak. I have yet to hear of Groundspeak demanding that Attended logs be removed in a fashion you suggest.

 

I was not talking about removing logs - I do not care about log rules. I have my own rules when I feel that I deserve a log.

 

My argument ran differently. It was about how comfortable I (and other people) feel with a log (not logs of others, logs of oneself) and with a certain behaviour.

 

In the case of your old event I would not have felt guilty to skip the breakfast or to come very late. When the event is only the breakfast this changes considerably.

Do you get what I try to say? It is not about any rules when attended log are allowed. It's not at the level of rules.

 

By the way: In your event listing you wrote that one should reserve a couple of hours for the event. So you used the term of event apparently in the sense that your event is more than the breakfast even if one did not take part in the kajaking part. The essential difference was that the kajaking part was still seen and appreciated as part of the event which has changed.

 

With respect to your 2005 event I would have felt a bit proud if I had taken part in the paddling part (with the help of other people) and overcame my anxiety and that would not have changed if I had attended the brealfeast only for a few minutes and would not have been talkative there at all but just extremely nervous.

With the new guidelines I would feel obliged to stay for the major part of the breakfast and would not feel that any sort of participation in the boat activity could compensate for the my failure at the breakfast. Whatever the setup were, I would end up feeling as a bad and underachieving attendant of the event due to the new guidelines. This is a major difference to the old ones.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Yes, of course. I just wrote that it is not true that moving events have never been part of the event concept as someone claimed the contrary.

I never argued that moving events are feasible with respect to the current guidelines.

In your part of the world, with your Reviewer in 2005, perhaps.

 

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

 

And that's MY point. Groundspeak realized that, in a global game, they need to clarify with more certainty what they meant with the general guidelines. What used to work via osmosis between the Lilypad, the local PNW users, and the rest of the world was the small community policing itself and aligning with each other. As the game grew, that became impossible--what with the cultural differences, language barriers, and additional "innovation" or bending of the guidelines that rooted in a community elsewhere.

 

Squash. Sorry that was your toe, but Groundspeak saw that things needed to be clarified, and they did just that through the years.

 

Grey icons. Get over it.

Link to comment

Squash. Sorry that was your toe, but Groundspeak saw that things needed to be clarified, and they did just that through the years.

 

Call it changed and not clarified and I agree. Clarification creates the impression that something was unclear and not that something was allowed as the statement did not offer any sort of

room for interpretation. Of course I talk about what the guidelines stated and not what perhaps someone wanted them to say but did not manage to express correctly.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

As I have written already several times I could live much better with a rule that every event has to include a period of at least 30 minutes (with given start and end times) which takes place at the posted coordinates, but whatever happens outside of the period is also part of the event. I would compare this period to registration hours for a conference.

 

Holy cat's meow! Cezanne! We've shown you TIME AND TIME AGAIN that you can have just that.

 

 

Reread what bruce0 replied to me today and my reply to him. That perfectly makes the point. What you and others have described is a workaround which makes an event publishable, but it will not change the fact that some will call it cheating and against the spirit of events when the true intent of the event host and many participants is the planned physical activity. The event host will be there during the enforced 30 minutes, many participants will not and many of those who will be hear will not be there with their hearts and use the time for preparations etc.

In this manner one certainly gets a publishable event, but I except those who appreciate every event and only care about logging, noone will really appreciate this situation that much.

 

Note that at the registration desk of a conference what one expects is to be able to register and to collect one's conference materials. One does not come with the expectation to socialize unlike for a get together. I'd say that a conference where only the required staff is available does a good job while I would not say that an event where only the event host is available and most of the participants show up later is the ideal situation I have in mind for an event. I also do not expect the staff at the registration desk to socialize with the partipants who wish to register. I used my example on purpose and still believe that it is a good example for demonstrating the difference.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Could the motivation for he "stationary" and "distinct start/end times" be to protect attendees?

 

Old guidelines allowed a person to post an event as "We will start around 12:00, and hike the trail." So, if I showed up after 12, and hiked the trail, could I claim it? A controlling event host may have deleted the "Attended".

 

With the new guidelines, if a person shows up at the posted location, during the posted times, they can claim the "Attended", and the host cannot delete the log.

I have a feeling you're right, but I still don't get it: why should a rule be designed specifically to prevent the CO from insisting you're on time? Why is it so important that anyone that could possibly want to claim that they attended be allowed to do so even if they refuse to show up on time? The attendee has a very simple way to protect themselves: they can just not show up.

My best guess is stated above. I think that Groundspeak recognized that brand-new, newer, and unfamiliar cachers who might otherwise avoid or miss an event would have an incentive to try and meet others. if one knows they can come within a window, but not do something which might otherwise be difficult, uncomfortable, or unwanted, they still can.

 

It opens up the doors of events to provide a time and opportunity for people to come without worry. I know that sounds weird, but one really needs to consider the views and thoughts of a "noob" or someone who might otherwise have not wanted or been able to attend a "flash mob" a "hike" or whatever. By leaving a short window for all events to be at the listed coordinates, Groundspeak is acknowledging fully that one can host an event where the activity might take the group away from the listed coords. All they've done is left a time where any and all willing and able people can still attend, meet, greet, and perhaps even have an arm twisted (har har) to join in the other activities; sometimes you can make a wallflower the life of the party.

 

It can be argued (obviously...) to no end about why a "window" might "sadden" someone...but I think they can get over it.

Link to comment

Squash. Sorry that was your toe, but Groundspeak saw that things needed to be clarified, and they did just that through the years.

 

Call it changed and not clarified and I agree. Clarification creates the impression that something was unclear and not that something was allowed as the statement did not offer any sort of

room for interpretation. Of course I talk about what the guidelines stated and not what perhaps someone wanted them to say but did not manage to express correctly.

Tomato, tom"ahh"to

Link to comment

 

It can be argued (obviously...) to no end about why a "window" might "sadden" someone...but I think they can get over it.

 

The issue is not the window. It would then suffice to write start of window and end of window and not end of event.

Allowing for such a window is something completely different than declaring the geocaching event to be the window and forcing

everything else to happen outside of the geocaching event.

 

There is no reason to make someone who shows up one minute before the end of the window who then joins for a 4 hours hike to feel like a bad event attendant.

This cannot be explained with any needs newcomers might have.

Link to comment

 

Reread what bruce0 replied to me today and my reply to him. That perfectly makes the point. What you and others have described is a workaround which makes an event publishable, but it will not change the fact that some will call it cheating and against the spirit of events when the true intent of the event host and many participants is the planned physical activity. The event host will be there during the enforced 30 minutes, many participants will not and many of those who will be hear will not be there with their hearts and use the time for preparations etc.

In this manner one certainly gets a publishable event, but I except those who appreciate every event and only care about logging, noone will really appreciate this situation that much.

 

Note that at the registration desk of a conference what one expects is to be able to register and to collect one's conference materials. One does not come with the expectation to socialize unlike for a get together. I'd say that a conference where only the required staff is available does a good job while I would not say that an event where only the event host is available and most of the participants show up later is the ideal situation I have in mind for an event. I also do not expect the staff at the registration desk to socialize with the partipants who wish to register. I used my example on purpose and still believe that it is a good example for demonstrating the difference.

Let them have it. They can call it what they want, but you can still have the events as allowed under the guidelines, which you also would like to attend.

 

We're not talking about "registering". You can't enforce a logbook at an event either, so your point is strictly to troll; I get it.

Link to comment

 

It can be argued (obviously...) to no end about why a "window" might "sadden" someone...but I think they can get over it.

 

The issue is not the window. It would then suffice to write start of window and end of window and not end of event.

Allowing for such a window is something completely different than declaring the geocaching event to be the window and forcing

everything else to happen outside of the geocaching event.

 

There is no reason to make someone who shows up one minute before the end of the window who then joins for a 4 hours hike to feel like a bad event attendant.

This cannot be explained with any needs newcomers might have.

:blink: Huh?

 

It is the window. It isn't the window. It saddens. It suffices. I'm ok with it. I'm not ok with it. It's cheating. It's a workaround. That would make me happy. That doesn't make me happy.

 

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.

Link to comment

 

Reread what bruce0 replied to me today and my reply to him. That perfectly makes the point. What you and others have described is a workaround which makes an event publishable, but it will not change the fact that some will call it cheating and against the spirit of events when the true intent of the event host and many participants is the planned physical activity. The event host will be there during the enforced 30 minutes, many participants will not and many of those who will be hear will not be there with their hearts and use the time for preparations etc.

In this manner one certainly gets a publishable event, but I except those who appreciate every event and only care about logging, noone will really appreciate this situation that much.

 

Note that at the registration desk of a conference what one expects is to be able to register and to collect one's conference materials. One does not come with the expectation to socialize unlike for a get together. I'd say that a conference where only the required staff is available does a good job while I would not say that an event where only the event host is available and most of the participants show up later is the ideal situation I have in mind for an event. I also do not expect the staff at the registration desk to socialize with the partipants who wish to register. I used my example on purpose and still believe that it is a good example for demonstrating the difference.

Let them have it. They can call it what they want, but you can still have the events as allowed under the guidelines, which you also would like to attend.

 

We're not talking about "registering". You can't enforce a logbook at an event either, so your point is strictly to troll; I get it.

 

No, my point is not to troll at all. Of course the registration example cannot cover all aspects as otherwise it would be the same type of thing and not something different. I tried to explain to you the emotional level involved while you only focus on the pragmatic one. Yes, one can still use event listings to meet with cachers to go for a hike after or before a geocaching event. I never said anything contrary. The fact is that it makes a difference what is declared as event when it comes to how people like myself feel both as event hosts and as event attendants.

 

As a host for an event which consists of a 1 hour breakfast I would feel the obligation to socialize with the participants during that hour and as a participant I would feel the need to be there for say at least 30 minutes, but ideally longer.

 

As a host for an event which involves a hike of 4 hours, I would not feel the obligation to socialize during the meeting period and would only reply to questions when someone approaches me. As an event participant I would feel free to arrive only 10 minutes before the start of the hike and use the 10 minutes for my preparation.

 

Do you finally get why it is so important for me what is the actual event and when it ends? I never would allow myself to spend only 10 minutes at an event and consider myself a participant (regardless of an attended log) but spending 4 hours and 10 minutes at an event is perfectly in compliance with expectations on my person.

Link to comment

 

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).

Link to comment

Do you finally get why it is so important for me what is the actual event and when it ends? I never would allow myself to spend only 10 minutes at an event and consider myself a participant (regardless of an attended log) but spending 4 hours and 10 minutes at an event is perfectly in compliance with expectations on my person.

Great.

Again, we're back to you, and your choices. You can select the events you want to go to. You can select how you will participate, behave, react, and reflect. You can decide how long you want to be there, how long you want to interact with others, and how long you decide suffices so you can go home and log "Attended".

Link to comment

 

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).

No. Not true.

 

We've shown examples, and Reviewers have weighed in on the other thread, of how this will be publishable.

 

Plus, how do you know with any certainty that you're right? You've never created an event, and likely never then worked with a Reviewer to know how to tailor your event to the guidelines and desires of yourself and attendees.

Link to comment

Do you finally get why it is so important for me what is the actual event and when it ends? I never would allow myself to spend only 10 minutes at an event and consider myself a participant (regardless of an attended log) but spending 4 hours and 10 minutes at an event is perfectly in compliance with expectations on my person.

Great.

Again, we're back to you, and your choices. You can select the events you want to go to. You can select how you will participate, behave, react, and reflect. You can decide how long you want to be there, how long you want to interact with others, and how long you decide suffices so you can go home and log "Attended".

 

But don't you think that it will have a considerable effect on the events that take place and on the attendants when more cachers share my opinion and will act accordingly?

 

Whatever has been written in this thread has not contributed a bit to help me understand why one needs to enforce that both the start and end of an event have to coincide with the start and end of the what you call window.

Link to comment
Guess what? It doesn't matter. Those 2005 guidelines have been adjusted, updated, clarified, and rewritten a handful of times since then.

 

Guess what else? You've gotta follow the guidelines today, just as you would have if you had a time machine.

Has this ever been in question? It seems to me that the point has been that event organizers must follow the guidelines as they are written and interpreted today, and that the way the guidelines were written and interpreted at some point in the past was better.

 

Guess what else what else? You can still have an event where you hike if you simply meet the guidelines for publication, and you've worked with your Reviewer to get it cleared for publication.

 

What in the dallgurn world is the problem, cezanne?

As I understand it, cezanne's problem is that the changes to the way the guidelines have been written and interpreted has changed the way local events are organized, that cezanne preferred the way local events used to be organized, and therefore, that cezanne preferred the way the guidelines were written and interpreted.

 

It has never been about cezanne organizing an event. It has never been about whether workarounds exist.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...