Jump to content

Hiking Events


HikingSeal
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

But again it seems to be the case that these additional activities have to be static and do not move and it also appears that the rules have been written with events in mind where there is something like a registration area where someone is available during the whole event between the mentioned start and end times.

 

I cannot see how the event guidelines as formulated right now could include a hike moving from A to B as part of the event (not even if one would add 100 waypoints along the trail).

Link to comment

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

But again it seems to be the case that these additional activities have to be static and do not move and it also appears that the rules have been written with events in mind where there is something like a registration area where someone is available during the whole event between the mentioned start and end times at the posted coordinates (or in some cases at a later time at one of the additional waypoints, like a lunch followed by a later dinner).

 

I cannot see how the event guidelines as formulated right now could include a hike moving from A to B as part of the event (not even if one would add 100 waypoints along the trail), and NeverSummer apparently believes that it is possible provided that 30 minutes are spent at the posted coordinates (so you then could have an event with a meeting period starting at 9:00 until 9:30 when the hike starts which returnes at 14:00 and the start time for the event would be announced as 9:00 and the end time as 14:00 and not as 9:30). In my understanding this setup contradicts the guidelines.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

But again it seems to be the case that these additional activities have to be static and do not move

See, this is why it seems like you're being deliberately obtuse.

The Guidelines also discuss using Additional Waypoints to address the issue of having multiple activities at different locations throughout the duration of a longer Event, let's say , something resembling a hike perhaps?

 

and it also appears that the rules have been written with events in mind where there is something like a registration an area at the posted coordinates where someone is available during the whole event between the mentioned start and end times.

That is the whole point. Yes.

 

I cannot see how the event guidelines as formulated right now could include a hike moving from A to B as part of the event (not even if one would add 100 waypoints along the trail).

IF THE EVENT IS AT THE POSTED COORDINATES FOR AT LEAST 30 MINUTES.

 

/me must walk away again. :wacko:

Link to comment

 

I cannot see how the event guidelines as formulated right now could include a hike moving from A to B as part of the event (not even if one would add 100 waypoints along the trail).

IF THE EVENT IS AT THE POSTED COORDINATES FOR AT LEAST 30 MINUTES.

 

/me must walk away again. :wacko:

 

But then you do not regard the hike as part of the official event, but just something that takes place after the end ended, or someone would have to stay at the meeting point until the people who go for a hike have returned. How else could it fit into the guidelines as they are formulated right now.

 

Is in your opinion any way to understand the guidelines in such a way that it suffices that the group is available from 9:00-9:30 at the posted coordinates and then out for a hike until 14:00 if noone stays at the meeting point and the event end time is given with 14:00? If so explain me the rationale behind that interpretation.

 

It is obvious that one could list 9:30 as end of the end and go for the hike outside of the end, but that's hardly a hiking event.

Link to comment

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

But again it seems to be the case that these additional activities have to be static and do not move and it also appears that the rules have been written with events in mind where there is something like a registration area where someone is available during the whole event between the mentioned start and end times at the posted coordinates (or in some cases at a later time at one of the additional waypoints, like a lunch followed by a later dinner).

 

I cannot see how the event guidelines as formulated right now could include a hike moving from A to B as part of the event (not even if one would add 100 waypoints along the trail), and NeverSummer apparently believes that it is possible provided that 30 minutes are spent at the posted coordinates (so you then could have an event with a meeting period starting at 9:00 until 9:30 when the hike starts which returnes at 14:00 and the start time for the event would be announced as 9:00 and the end time as 10 and not as 9:30). In my understanding this setup contradicts the guidelines.

It's truly amazing how much conjecture you can summon from the brief paragraph that addresses the issue. A sum total of five sentences. Perhaps the real issue is that the Guidelines aren't long enough for your liking?

 

Out of curiosity, how would you propose wording that first paragraph, which would not lend itself to abuse and exclusion?

Link to comment
Out of curiosity, how would you propose wording that first paragraph, which would not lend itself to abuse and exclusion?

 

I'd write something like this (assuming that the 30 minutes interval is required)

 

"Each event needs to include an interval of length at least 30 minutes with given start and end times which

is spent at the posted coordinates. Additional activities that take place outside of this interval and not at the

posted coordinates are welcome. If needed additional waypoints can be added."

 

which is certainly not exclusive. Everything can be abused - e.g. a CITO can be abused too but is allowed to move.

 

In my opinion the main issue apparently is not that Groundspeak fears abuse, but rather their concept of an event

- see e.g. wha they write here

https://www.geocaching.com/calendar/guide.aspx

 

Depending on the length of your event and the resources provided by the location, you will want to plan for the following resources to be available for your guests:

 

Parking

Food and beverages

Shelter

 

and

 

What usually occurs at an Event Cache?

 

Geocachers meet and greet, eat, play games and share stories about geocaching.

 

Going for a hike and sharing stories about geocaching apparently does not fit into their concept of an event (as part of the event!) while playing games and eating does.

 

Also I'd like to ask all who propose to use the workaround, how do you feel when reading something like that in the knowledge book

 

We know most geocachers are overachievers. We therefore encourage players to exceed the minimum durations to enjoy more time with their fellow adventurers.

 

Is it appropriate to call the host and the attendants of a 5 hours event hike with a 30 minutes break or waiting time underachievers and those who host a 1 hour event in a pizza place overachievers?

 

Does it help anyone to use this language of overachievers (explicitely) and underachievers (implicitely)?

 

Don't you see Groundspeak's text as a message of the type: Well, we can't keep you from using the workaround, but we rather want to see party style events that stay at one place for a longer time than 30 minutes and which do not move away later?

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

niraD, I have no idea, but my experience tells me that Groundspeak is reluctant to make changes to the Guidelines unless there is a pretty good reason to do so. My sense is that the current change had more to do with the flash mob movement (see OP referring to the Podcacher announcement), and some abuse alluded to many pages back regarding sequential FM Events (i.e. "stacking"), which wasn't sufficiently addressed in the old version of that paragraph.

 

Bravo cezanne! I applaud your open and honest post. I have to say, that the only substantial difference between the current Guidelines, and yours is the following:

 

Additional activities that take place outside of this interval and not at the

posted coordinates are welcome.

 

I'm not sure that sort of thing must be explicitly stated for my benefit, but if you think it should be there, I will defend your right to think so. Most of my experience with *moving* type Events has been with CITO's, where there is generally a gathering spot at the posted coordinates, and then the work takes place at some other location (in one case over 50 miles away).

 

I'm not sure what your solution will be, but I'm pretty confident that your interpretation of Groundspeak's intention is incorrect. The entire essence of this sport is about being outside. The fact that you can only post one set of coordinates at the top of the Listing page, thus defining some *fixed* point, has been around since the inception of the website. Calling something a *moving* Event, whether it's hiking, biking, or paddling is a bit of a fiction under the current arrangement. It should really be a tracklog to accomplish what you're describing, and unfortunately the website has never accommodated that feature.

 

As far as the Hosting An Event FAQ you've quoted, that's pretty generally known to be for general consumption for newer members that are getting started with that sort of thing, and need some general guidance. Grounspeak doesn't hide the fact that part of its mission is to be "Family Friendly" (queue the cute kid photo with the Groundspeak tattoos). I don't read that page as some sort of general Policy statement.

Link to comment

I very much do know your point.

 

....

 

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

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

You make it sound like Groundspeak has never reverted a decision. Those of use who have been around long enough know this is not the case.

 

In this case we even know that Groundspeak has experimented with allowing some events that involved organizing cache hunts. They have seen a demand for this and appear to be looking for ways to accommodate it. In addition we know there are long standing events in many areas that were hikes (or other moving events). While we are seeing that many of these are able to work around the guideline by including a 30-minute stationary activity at some point, one has to wonder what abuse was happening when the stationary activity was only 5 minutes or when the event listing just said "Meet us for a hike. We will be leaving from xx.xxx yy.yyy. at hh:mm."

 

There may have been some abuse, or perhaps reviewers couldn't tell if this was a hike for socializing or just to get a group to find caches. If that is so, there are suggestions on other ways to handle this. Some geocachers find it difficult to understand why moving events where you hunt caches are bad, while other events have Lab Caches or where the reviewers publish a slew of caches in conjuction with the event are OK.

Link to comment

If cezanne is so intent on having a hiking event, maybe she should call it a CITO, which is allowed to be a moving event, along a trail of her choosing. I am sure that every trail in her area could use a little clean-up and her 30km hike trail cleaning CITO event would easily be approved.

 

One thing that some folks don't seem to grasp, is that there is usually a way to accomplish what you want, IF you are willing to look for a solution instead of arguing about discussing the problem.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak's concern is with flash mob events and event stacking, and if moving events are compatible with Groundspeak's goals for events, then how about just:

 

It takes place starts/ends at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak's concern is with flash mob events and event stacking, and if moving events are compatible with Groundspeak's goals for events, then how about just:

 

It takes place starts/ends at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes.

 

That of course would be more elegant and shorter. The reason why I decided for the version I suggested above was that in my version it trys to address the issue that somehow also seems to be behind the new guidelines, namely to provide a 30 minutes interval of given length and known in advance where the event can be visited and logged as attended by anyone who visits the posted coordinates during that period of time and wants to log it.

 

The outcome is less elegant than your version (which allows full flexibility) and than the current version (which is very restrictive), but it is less restrictive than Groundspeak's version and officially acknowledges that moving elements can be part of an event and welcome as such in the same way as eating etc.

Link to comment

If cezanne is so intent on having a hiking event, maybe she should call it a CITO, which is allowed to be a moving event, along a trail of her choosing. I am sure that every trail in her area could use a little clean-up and her 30km hike trail cleaning CITO event would easily be approved.

One thing that some folks don't seem to grasp, is that there is usually a way to accomplish what you want, IF you are willing to look for a solution instead of arguing about discussing the problem.

 

It's just a matter of definition what someone wants to accomplish and with which means. I'm aware both of the 30 minutes workaround (which then turns a formerly nice and popular hiking event in the bare minimum required by Groundspeak and regarded as underachieving by them) and the CITO alternative. I regard the latter as abuse. Do not understand me in a wrong way. If one encounters trash and is in the situation to take it along, one should do that regardless of whether it is a CITO, geocaching event, hike, family walk etc. I'm against cheapening CITOS and having too many of them where the central focus is not a big trash cleaning initiative. In my opinion, it harms the positive image of CITO events.

 

I do know that quite a number of CITOs are combined with cache hunting - there are even CITOs where all follow exactly the same route provided by a newly hidden multi cache. Guess on what the cachers then focus predominantly?

 

There are certainly ways to meet cachers and go for a hike with them. This issue has several solutions, but not a nice and clean one on gc.com.

 

The problem that apparently Groundspeak is more and more restricting what an event can be and is walking in the wrong direction in my opinion and sending out wrong signals to the caching community (again in my opinion) cannot be addressed by the suggestions that have been made.

 

As Groundspeak often restricts the guidelines further if something is abused in their opinion, it is not a good idea to encourage abuses of certain concepts and even with respect to the suggested 30 minutes workaround we never read an official statement of Groundspeak that they appreciate if this approach is used and do not see it as underachieving 30 minutes events. I do not want to contribute to further restrictions in the future.

 

It hurts my soul when I read how Groundspeak characterizes events via eating and playing game as if there can't be something else to support socializing.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I don't see a problem at all with the Event guidelines. I feel they promote a certain type of event that they want to support (that has nothing to do with eating > hiking), and everyone who wants to do activities that don't fit that mold can still do them, even still be associated with valid, published events.

I see zero problem with it.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I don't see a problem at all with the Event guidelines. I feel they promote a certain type of event that they want to support (that has nothing to do with eating > hiking),

 

But if you read this

What usually occurs at an Event Cache?

 

Geocachers meet and greet, eat, play games and share stories about geocaching.

 

they describe events via eating and playing games which has not been the way events have been described for many years.

 

and everyone who wants to do activities that don't fit that mold can still do them, even still be associated with valid, published events.

 

Events which then are referred to as underachieving ones while the "stellar" 3 hours event at a restaurant is an overachiever. That hurts my soul and you will

not change it.

 

It all fits to my impression that Groundspeak does not care too much if they lose cachers from the early years. I guess they prefer ten app cachers who just care about smileys to one briansnat type cacher.

Link to comment

Some geocachers find it difficult to understand why moving events where you hunt caches are bad, while other events have Lab Caches or where the reviewers publish a slew of caches in conjuction with the event are OK.

 

I was discussing this fine point only last night with a geocacher friend. I find the distinction hard to fathom too.

Link to comment

It's just a matter of definition what someone wants to accomplish and with which means. I'm aware both of the 30 minutes workaround (which then turns a formerly nice and popular hiking event in the bare minimum required by Groundspeak and regarded as underachieving by them) and the CITO alternative. I regard the latter as abuse. Do not understand me in a wrong way. If one encounters trash and is in the situation to take it along, one should do that regardless of whether it is a CITO, geocaching event, hike, family walk etc. I'm against cheapening CITOS and having too many of them where the central focus is not a big trash cleaning initiative. In my opinion, it harms the positive image of CITO events.

 

I do know that quite a number of CITOs are combined with cache hunting - there are even CITOs where all follow exactly the same route provided by a newly hidden multi cache. Guess on what the cachers then focus predominantly?

 

 

Another very valid point :)

 

Personally I find it strange that we need to pretend that an event is something that it isn't - just to get it published :blink:

 

And yet this seems to be considered a perfectly acceptable option by many.

 

I'd rather call a spade a spade, and let potential users decided on that basis if it's the type of tool they would like to use - or not.

Link to comment

I don't see a problem at all with the Event guidelines. I feel they promote a certain type of event that they want to support (that has nothing to do with eating > hiking),

But if you read this

No. I'm talking about your constant hurl that Groundspeak feels that eating is somehow in any way better than hiking. No. No. No.

 

they describe events via eating and playing games which has not been the way events have been described for many years.

Yes because they want events to consist of certain types of activities - activities that can take place at one static location. Other activities can still take place in addition.

 

OMG I'm not getting into this again.

 

I have no problem with the current rules. You do. Fine.

 

Events which then are referred to as underachieving ones while the "stellar" 3 hours event at a restaurant is an overachiever.

Holy crap.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

they describe events via eating and playing games which has not been the way events have been described for many years.

 

 

I went to my first geocaching event about 8 years ago, and I dare say that *most* events I have been to have had at least two of those elements. It is not inaccurate to say that this is what "usually" happens at events. This is a factual description of how events usually go. It is not a restriction or a guideline.

Link to comment

I don't see a problem at all with the Event guidelines. I feel they promote a certain type of event that they want to support (that has nothing to do with eating > hiking), and everyone who wants to do activities that don't fit that mold can still do them, even still be associated with valid, published events.

I see zero problem with it.

Perhaps. Groundspeak may have good reason to feel that events have to be at one location and last at least 1/2 hour. They may truly believe that cachers can't make meaningful connections unless they are stationary for 30 minutes or more. :unsure:

 

The problem people have is that they like other activities that require you to move. In order to do these activities at an event, they are now required to have a 30 minute stationary activity as well. While that is generally simple to do, some people will see it a favoring stationary activites over activities that move. In addition, some people who have been used to having events that consisted of a single activity in the past, may feel that the guidelines now make the qualifying stationary activity "the event" and result in the real activity getting short schrift (for example, the D/T ratings are for the stationary part of the event and not the hike).

 

While these problems may be trivial they are by no means zero problem.

 

I sure wish that Groundspeak would repeal the ruling for and make cezanne happy again.

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view. If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page. When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

Link to comment

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view. If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page. When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

Link to comment

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view. If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page. When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

 

I wish the people who aren't interested in a thread would just ignore the thread and look at all the threads they are interested in instead.

 

Sheesh, if I posted "guh, wish people would stop talking about this" on every topic that was uninteresting to me, it would be three-quarters of all the posts.

Link to comment
The problem people have is that they like other activities that require you to move. In order to do these activities at an event, they are now required to have a 30 minute stationary activity as well. While that is generally simple to do, some people will see it a favoring stationary activites over activities that move.

It is. It very much is. For the primary event that is the Event Listing. No one denied that.

 

In addition, some people who have been used to having events that consisted of a single activity in the past, may feel that the guidelines now make the qualifying stationary activity "the event" and result in the real activity getting short schrift

For whatever reason, that's not the way Groundspeak wants it now. As the primary event. They are still allowed, just not as the primary event at the posted coordinates. And yup, rules change, people don't like changes, and the world keeps spinning.

 

While these problems may be trivial they are by no means zero problem.

That's your opinion. And that's perfectly fine. I said I see zero problem with the rules, because I feel the 'workaround' to still enjoy those activities is an insignificant hurdle, practically speaking. When it comes to 'value' of the Event Listing, it's 100% subjective, and irrelevant to my view of the "problem". Because people value different things; the value of a smiley, the value of a +1, the value of popularity, whatever. In my mind, practically speaking, nothing has to change with events, except that something now is required to be happening at the posted coordinates for 30 minutes or more.

That's it.

Nothing to do with value. Nothing is being banned. All activities can still take place. The 'problem' is that some people don't like the perceived reduction of 'value' of certain activities in the context of the "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing". To me, that's a non-issue, because it's Groundspeak's definition. To others, it's a fight to change Groundspeak's valuation, instead of seeking and/or accepting practical solutions.

 

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view.

Nope. Don't care if cezanne doesn't like rules. I don't like some rules. But I can live with them. And I can understand why they exist, accepting that this is Groundspeak's baby. Even as a paying customer, I'm not an investor; I don't "have a say", I don't have the right to be heard. I'm a customer that buys a service. If I don't like the service, I don't have to pay. If I don't like something, I can certainly voice my opinion, and from then on I can either bite the bullet or be a huge PITA. Groundspeak has no obligation to listen or to speak. It's in their best interest to pay attention to customers, but they have no obligation.

 

If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page.

Nope, because some people would always raise the same issues, over and over again, in numerous threads, that are even barely related to it. The same people. Complaining. About the same things. With no acceptable resolution in sight. Yup. It happens.

 

When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

When you get to the point that someone challenges other people about wanting to have the last word, it's arguing about arguing, and the discussion/debate/argument has jumped the shark. And that happened a looooong time ago.

 

I wish the people who aren't interested in a thread would just ignore the thread and look at all the threads they are interested in instead.

 

Sheesh, if I posted "guh, wish people would stop talking about this" on every topic that was uninteresting to me, it would be three-quarters of all the posts.

+1

Link to comment

 

Nope, because some people would always raise the same issues, over and over again, in numerous threads, that are even barely related to it. The same people. Complaining. About the same things. With no acceptable resolution in sight. Yup. It happens.

 

 

Actually, I've seen some interesting movement lately. There will always be the single-issue candidates and the personal vendetta trolls mucking things up, but there is actually a lot of good discussion happening.

 

In my opinion, complaining that people are still talking about something is second only to personal insults when it comes to things that poison forums. I would rather see the same two or three people hashing something out than this pointless derailment from someone who could just as easily ignore the thread.

 

Despite his poor attitude, cezanne raises some good points about the nature of events. The real shame is that he can't do so without belittling everyone else's events.

Link to comment

I can live with that... and I hate derailment (even though I've been a part of them before). I feel for the thread; unfortunately more often than not if you try to guide a thread back on course you get called out for censoring and saying people don't have rights to opinions or to discuss :ph34r:

 

Despite his poor attitude, cezanne raises some good points about the nature of events.

 

Agreed. And I feel for them (cezanne and others). As I said, there are some rules I'd also love to see changed to allow for things I love to do, or experiences or cache types I love. Unfortunately that's not the direction Groundspeak chooses to go. And speaking only for myself, I can live with that (now). The best courses of action are well-reasoned, well-thought out proposals that they can consider in the proper context and manner with respectful discussion - as opposed to free-form forum rants anywhere that seems related.

So yep, I understand the frustration when you can no longer do what you liked to do or enjoy. And it is disingenuous to tell people they're wrong for feeling that way. It's perfectly natural. And thus I point to my last comment in reply to knowshad about rules and opinions.

 

As it is, in this thread, opinions were stated, people sought answers; responses for help and answers as best as possible were given, but were deemed insufficient. It kept going because the same points and arguments were raised, prompting the same responses again, where some people were satisfied and others weren't. And the cycle continued.

 

I'm sure Groundspeak has read and understand the opinions expressed about the changes made to the rules. They stop reading when their integrity or capability are called into question, when unfounded charges are made against staff and the company that are spawned from distaste of decision-making - both because that does nothing to add to the conversation, and because many staff don't want to feel insulted or offended or open the door for angst in the workplace.

So, productive discussion goes much farther than hurling accusations and loudly, excessively, expressing colourful opinions. I'm not singling individuals out here - I see this in many threads, many people, on various topics, and in threads I've merely lurked in. This is why people joke about never coming to the forums. It brings out the worst in people :P from blatant insults to angsty frustration.

And yep, try to help a thread stay relevant and focused and you come under fire too. *sigh*

 

Anyway, I seem to be riding the jumping shark at the moment, so I'm going to jump (from) the shark and swim back to shore.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Nothing to do with value. Nothing is being banned. All activities can still take place. The 'problem' is that some people don't like the perceived reduction of 'value' of certain activities in the context of the "Official Geocaching.com Event Listing". To me, that's a non-issue, because it's Groundspeak's definition. To others, it's a fight to change Groundspeak's valuation, instead of seeking and/or accepting practical solutions.

I object to stating nothing has been banned. True you can still have a 30 km hike activity in conjunction with an event. But you certainly can't have a 10 minute flash mob event. I've been to several 10 to 15 minute flash mob events. Using the GPS to get accurate coordinates as well as time, geocachers were asked to appear at a location at a specified time and mingle for 10 or 15 minutes, then leave. I actually found it much easier to socialize at these events than ones held in a crowded noisy restaurant. The time limit force you to make connections and there was the incentive to make connections so you could continue to socialize beyond the event while searching for caches with a group. Grroundspeak may not value this kind of social interaction. I do.

 

I wish the people who aren't interested in a thread would just ignore the thread and look at all the threads they are interested in instead.

 

Sheesh, if I posted "guh, wish people would stop talking about this" on every topic that was uninteresting to me, it would be three-quarters of all the posts.

+1

some people like to debate. I didn't mean to sound like I was telling people to shut up. But I've debated with cezanne on other topic as well as with thebruce0 and narcissa (see my signature), and I can tell when this is debate for debate's sake or when there is some reasonable discussion. I'll probably take my own advice here and take a time out from this (and related) threads.

Link to comment

 

Despite his poor attitude, cezanne raises some good points about the nature of events. The real shame is that he can't do so without belittling everyone else's events.

 

Once again how should I stress that my intent is not to belittle anyone. I even explained you quite a lot about the background my personal preferences come from. I sit most of my life - so it is not about belittling sitting activities (would be quite absurd in my case). It's rather a personal motivation for why geocaching should provide a contrast for me to daily life.

When I contrast a pizza eating event with a hiking event, then you should keep in mind what I said before that pizza is unfortunately one of my favourite dishes and that when it comes to me as individual I could not attend a 50km hiking event. Still I think that it is worth to question the unbalanced treatment and to fight for moving events (there is nothing bad about party style events and there are great parties, but there is no need to fight for such events).

 

I do not want to ban any sort of event. Every event has to be organized by someone and involves effort. I do not have organized geocaching events, but I have organized other things (smaller and bigger ones) and I do know what's involved and what often is hidden. It is always easier to complain than to organize anything. I'm not complaining however about the events that take place. My goal is to question why the type of events is restricted by the guidelines in a way beyond what seems required by existing concerns. I do not want to take away the favourite events of anyone and I'm not asking anyone who wants to organize a 4 hours picnic event or an event with a 30 minutes break at a summit. I just would be pleased if other events were allowed too.

 

The big majority of those taking part in this thread write in their native language. I don't. I'm sorry that I'm apparently that bad in using the right nuances when it comes to chooses adjectives, idioms etc. Have you ever thought why it is the case that hardly any cachers from outside of English speaking countries where geocaching is popular are active in this part of the forum?

How many of you are able to discuss in a foreign language and over cultural barriers without sometimes ending up using formulations that are understood in a wrong manner?

How about you? It's one way to have a certain level of command of a language with respect to oral and written communication and it's another one to be able to cope with all these fine nuances and taking into account in addition the quite large cultural difference (which is larger than one might guess and this is not based on my opinion, but on what experts in the area will confirm when you ask them).

 

I have seen so many of my former colleagues from the early times quitting geocaching or at least stopping to contribute actively and I do think that I have quite a good overview of what those in my country who are into geocaching for a decade and more think about the many changes. Noone of those will ever come here and participate.

 

It's crystal clear that this site is owned by Groundspeak. They can make whatever rules we wish to make. We cachers however can question them as long as such a forum exists. This is at least something you and I agree on. I'm very sorry that I do not manage to convince you and others that my goals could not be farther from belittling anyone.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I object to stating nothing has been banned. True you can still have a 30 km hike activity in conjunction with an event. But you certainly can't have a 10 minute flash mob event.

Read my point: Activities have not been banned. The definition of a Geocaching.com Event has changed to indirectly disallow allow certain activity types as the primary event. The activities can still occur. When I say "banned" I am not saying the latter. I am saying the former. "Banned" is a heated term - Hikes have not been banned; Flash mobs have not been banned.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

As I said, there are some rules I'd also love to see changed to allow for things I love to do, or experiences or cache types I love. Unfortunately that's not the direction Groundspeak chooses to go.

 

First, it is one thing to come up with rules as the owner of a site (legitimate thing to do) and it is another not to reply to questions (I guess NeverSummer still has not received an answer to his politely formulated e-mail with no rants contained at all). If the guidelines are so crystal clear, it should be a matter of 2 minutes to answer and reply.

If a long consultation is needed, then probably it also tells us that the guidelines are not formulated in an optimal manner.

 

Second, there would certainly exist nicer ways to sell the new guidelines than referring to all those who are forced into 30 minutes events because their main event activity is not accepted within the new rules as part of an official geocaching event underachievers. Is this the type of respect that Groundspeak typically asks for the forum conduct? Would Groundspeak welcome if someone referred to some cachers as overachievers and to others as underachievers e.g. based on the type of caches they are able find/have hidden? Why is this language used for events? Is it necessary? I'm not alleging bad intent - it probably just happened, but then it could be changed.

I find it not very fair that some people blame me for belittling others (which certainly never has been my intent) and apparently do not care at all about the formulations Groundspeak is using which are belittling a certain group of cachers in my opinion.

 

 

If eating and playing games are the type of activities Groundspeak has in mind for events, wouldn't it be better if they refrained from general definitions of events in terms of socializing?

Don't you think that the many text pieces on the web page (knowledge book, event calendar, how to. guidelines etc) do not fit together when it comes to events. These are all pieces of text

written by different people in different styles and lacking consistency and any sort of logical relationsships.

 

 

As it is, in this thread, opinions were stated, people sought answers; responses for help and answers as best as possible were given, but were deemed insufficient. It kept going because the same points and arguments were raised, prompting the same responses again, where some people were satisfied and others weren't. And the cycle continued.

 

They were deemed unsufficient because they attack a different problem than e.g. the problem which is mine.

 

They typically come from the pragmatic side and explain how one could organize hikes involving geocachers which is a different problem than the one I have in mind.

 

I'm sure Groundspeak has read and understand the opinions expressed about the changes made to the rules.

 

I'm not sure, but anyway I could live if they do not follow the forums. It would suffice if they would provide helpful and clear answers to questions like the one NeverSummer sent to them.

 

The problem with constructive discussion is that different people here wish to discuss about different things and have different problems in mind. If A solves problem X, but B looks for a solution for problem Y, this will always end up as frustrating. What happens here is that some people do not realize that they suggest solutions for a different problem than the one others have in mind.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I object to stating nothing has been banned. True you can still have a 30 km hike activity in conjunction with an event. But you certainly can't have a 10 minute flash mob event.

Read my point: Activities have not been banned. The definition of a Geocaching.com Event has changed to indirectly disallow allow certain activity types as the primary event. The activities can still occur. When I say "banned" I am not saying the latter. I am saying the former. "Banned" is a heated term - Hikes have not been banned; Flash mobs have not been banned.

 

The activities can occur after the end of the event or before it startes - hooray. What happens after or before the event, Groundspeak will not be able to control anyway. So, I think that banned is the right term.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

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

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

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

 

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

That would work, if someone is at the posted co-ords for the duration of the event - meaning they can't be part of the hike. So if you can find someone willing to sit in their car for 4 hours (or whatever the length of the hike is...) while the CO and friends are out having fun, go for it.

Link to comment

First, it is one thing to come up with rules as the owner of a site (legitimate thing to do) and it is another not to reply to questions (I guess NeverSummer still has not received an answer to his politely formulated e-mail with no rants contained at all). If the guidelines are so crystal clear, it should be a matter of 2 minutes to answer and reply.

Like I said, respectable interaction is more likely to get a response. They still hvae no obligation to, especially if past experience has been met with animosity.

 

> If a long consultation is needed, then probably it also tells us that the guidelines are not formulated in an optimal manner.

 

If Groundspeak makes changes or responds, great.

 

Second, there would certainly exist nicer ways to sell the new guidelines than referring to all those who are forced into 30 minutes events because their main event activity is not accepted within the new rules as part of an official geocaching event underachievers.

1. "forced" - colourful language is not conducive to respectful exchange. They clarified the rules. Events Listing parameters now follow certain standards that some activities cannot provide. On one side of the fence, it's "forced". Objectively, it's a requirement.

2. Where pray tell do they claim any disallowed event is somehow an "underachiever"? This is not their language, see #1. The only mention of "overachievers" -- "We know most geocachers are overachievers." That is all.

 

Is this the type of respect that Groundspeak typically asks for the forum conduct?

With the amount of disrespect Groundspeak gets, I'm not surprised they don't frequent the forum as often as we'd like, even if it means they miss out on legitimate, productive discussion.

 

Why is this language used for events?

It's not.

 

do not care at all about the formulations Groundspeak is using which are belittling a certain group of cachers in my opinion.

They belittled no one. Many (actually they said "most") geocachers are overachievers. You can only take offense to that if you choose to do so.

 

If eating and playing games are the type of activities Groundspeak has in mind for events, wouldn't it be better if they refrained from general definitions of events in terms of socializing?

You're nit-picking whether a word is exclusive or inclusive? They did not say no other activity but they accept is socializing.

 

They were deemed unsufficient because they attack a different problem than e.g. the problem which is mine.

I disagree. Your concerns were directly addressed. You don't like their reasoning. I stand by that.

 

They typically come from the pragmatic side and explain how one could organize hikes involving geocachers which is a different problem than the one I have in mind.

Yup. You don't like the perceived "value" you're inferring from their wording that disallows activities you like as the primary event. It's fine you don't like that. But you're not seeking a solution.

 

I'm not sure, but anyway I could live if they do not follow the forums. It would suffice if they would provide helpful and clear answers to questions like the one NeverSummer sent to them.

Sure it would help. I don't expect a response though, because they are not obligated to give one, since they've already explained their decisions. If they do respond, great. I hope they do though so we don't get another 20 pages like this.

Link to comment

The Guidelines also discuss using Additional Waypoints to address the issue of having multiple activities at different locations throughout the duration of a longer Event, let's say , something resembling a hike perhaps?

That would work, if someone is at the posted co-ords for the duration of the event - meaning they can't be part of the hike. So if you can find someone willing to sit in their car for 4 hours (or whatever the length of the hike is...) while the CO and friends are out having fun, go for it.

Exactly. Because the hike is not the primary event. It's a supllemental event, an optional event, that takes place in addition to the event that's taking place at the posted coordinates. But the hike is still allowed. If the host wants to go on the hike, as the optional activity, then the host needs to be responsible enough to find someone to be by the posted coordinates for the duration of the listed Event.

 

Of course, there's nothing stopping the host from going on the hike anyway and leaving no one there - if you don't care about being etched into the reviewers' black book for misrepresenting your Official Geocaching.com Event.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Like I said, respectable interaction is more likely to get a response. They still hvae no obligation to, especially if past experience has been met with animosity.

 

Actually, here I happen to disagree. NeverSummer is a customer. So if he sends them a polite question about the guidelines, I think that they owe him a reply.

 

 

 

1. "forced" - colourful language is not conducive to respectful exchange. They clarified the rules. Events Listing parameters now follow certain standards that some activities cannot provide. On one side of the fence, it's "forced". Objectively, it's a requirement.

 

To force a constraint/requirement is technical language and not colourful at all. The usage of the term overachiever (underachiever) is not part of the guidelines and so they are not required - they involve a judgement on human beings which my usage of forced did not involve.

 

I have no idea what you have in mind when you read force? Weapons? Punishments?

 

I start to have some idea however how it could happen that some of of my statements are so terribly misunderstood. What often is technical language is apparently interpreted more like poetry.

 

 

 

2. Where pray tell do they claim any disallowed event is somehow an "underachiever"? This is not their language, see #1. The only mention of "overachievers" -- "We know most geocachers are overachievers." That is all.

 

Where there are overachievers, there are underachievers. It is pretty much obvious from what they write that a 30 minutes event is nothing they are happy with.

Moreover, what they write will certainly make everyone who hosted events where the official event was shorter than 30 minutes (say e.g. a flash mob followed by a hike) an underachiever. Otherwise the term overachiever makes no sense at all.

 

>Is this the type of respect that Groundspeak typically asks for the forum conduct?

With the amount of disrespect Groundspeak gets, I'm not surprised they don't frequent the forum as often as we'd like, even if it means they miss out on legitimate, productive discussion.

 

I'm not surprised either, but my question was a completely different one. I do not expect them to be active here. I just wondered whether the cachers are asked to use respectful language while the same does not seem to hold for Groundspeak.

 

 

They belittled no one. Many (actually they said "most") geocachers are overachievers. You can only take offense to that if you choose to do so.

 

But from the context they use it, it becomes apparent that they wish to see longer events than 30 minutes events.

 

 

>They were deemed unsufficient because they attack a different problem than e.g. the problem which is mine.

I disagree. Your concerns were directly addressed. You don't like their reasoning. I stand by that.

[/quote[

 

No, my concerns were not addressed. What happened is that some forms of listing events have been suggested that invite for a hike. I would not have needed this thread to realize all the suggested

variants.

 

>They typically come from the pragmatic side and explain how one could organize hikes involving geocachers which is a different problem than the one I have in mind.

Yup. You don't like the perceived "value" you're inferring from their wording that disallows activities you like as the primary event. It's fine you don't like that. But you're not seeking a solution.

 

That's not true. One solution could be to proceed along the way NeverSummer understands the guidelines. It would require however that Groundspeak and all reviewers share that view.

 

Sure it would help. I don't expect a response though, because they are not obligated to give one, since they've already explained their decisions.

 

The question is not about explaining their decision. The question is how to understand the guidelines. It's like if a country publishes a new law that different people understand differently and

then the ministry in charge is asked which interpretation is correct.

 

What's the purpose of coming up with new rules or clarifing existing ones (if you prefer it that way) than the hope that people will comply with the rules which requires that they understand the rules?

Does it make sense if different people understand them differently?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Yeah... I'm thinking NeverSummer took a break. I'm going to follow his footsteps. It's hopeless (for me at least). dry.gif

I've been taking a break, yes. Really, I've just realized that waiting for the response from Groundspeak is all /I/ need.

 

Thankfully I have seen no "end of the world" since the new guideline clarification/change. I still see the events I want to take part in getting published and hosted.

 

Want a certain event for a certain terrain rating? For the activity itself and not the standing around? For it to be of high achievement? I'll leave those subjective standards to cezanne, and simply keep on enjoying the game and Event Caches as they happen.

Link to comment

I still see the events I want to take part in getting published and hosted.

 

That quickly explains why you are not unhappy with what changed. It's quite easy to simply keep on enjoying event caches as they come if those events you like to see still are hosted.

 

Want a certain event for a certain terrain rating? For the activity itself and not the standing around? For it to be of high achievement? I'll leave those subjective standards to cezanne, and simply keep on enjoying the game and Event Caches as they happen.

 

It is neither about high achievements nor about subjective standards. A proper T-rating is one aspect of recognizing the role a moving activity plays as official part of an event which is the overall goal I have in mind as this would help to at least make some active events survive.

 

As the T rating is regarded, I wish that the terrain rating takes into account what is the key part of the event and what I came for. If I went for a hike, I do not want a T=1 show up in my list - it simply

does not fit. Moreover, as I mentioned, I try to keep the number of T=1 caches I visit as small possible and I explained why.

Link to comment

I still see the events I want to take part in getting published and hosted.

 

That quickly explains why you are not unhappy with what changed. It's quite easy to simply keep on enjoying event caches as they come if those events you like to see still are hosted.

 

Want a certain event for a certain terrain rating? For the activity itself and not the standing around? For it to be of high achievement? I'll leave those subjective standards to cezanne, and simply keep on enjoying the game and Event Caches as they happen.

 

It is neither about high achievements nor about subjective standards. A proper T-rating is one aspect of recognizing the role a moving activity plays as official part of an event which is the overall goal I have in mind as this would help to at least make some active events survive.

 

As the T rating is regarded, I wish that the terrain rating takes into account what is the key part of the event and what I came for. If I went for a hike, I do not want a T=1 show up in my list - it simply

does not fit. Moreover, as I mentioned, I try to keep the number of T=1 caches I visit as small possible and I explained why.

Oh...Now I see...

You go to events for the D/T ratings.

 

You don't care about the guidelines in the same way as we are discussing. You care that your profile might have a lower D/T listed on your "portfolio". Hmmm, sounds a bit misguided to me. <_<

 

So this throws back to the thread about Event Caches having a D/T of 1/1. You saw that as hurting your soul too. And now this seems to be taking another part. (Perhaps as a horcrux LPC in a Missouri Wal Mart?)

 

You don't like that events have a rating that you won't want in your portfolio of finds. That's not our problem. The guidelines are what they are, and you're afraid you'll lose some badge of honor if you end up with stats showing lower than some arbitrarily important personal stat? Give me a break. You're tilting your hand a little too much with why you're complaining about the change.

 

What you're doing is using personal, subjective measures to play your own side-game to geocaching. You want to see the D/T ratings you want, not the ratings as they are. This is no different a topic than arguing grid-fillers and FTF races.

 

You can still have "active" hiking events. What you're worried about now is that there is even less a chance that an event would have a D/T greater than 1/1 because the "event is the parking lot meeting" and not the hike. LAUGHABLE.

 

I'm sure that events can and will be listed with T ratings higher than 1, so long as it is accurate. I'm almost positive that I could see a D/T rating for the hiking caches as I (and Dan O Can in the other thread) have written up could still reflect a higher T rating if you need to hike a mountain to get there.

 

Want that T rating? Host an event at the peak at a designated time.

Is your cache:

Non-commercial?

Not for a cache hunt?

 

Does your cache:

List coordinates for the event?

Have a stated start and end time?

Last for at least 30 minutes?

 

If you said yes to all 5, you've got an Event Cache!

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view. If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page. When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

 

I wish the people who aren't interested in a thread would just ignore the thread and look at all the threads they are interested in instead.

 

Everybody loves a good train wreck, including you.

Link to comment

Cazanne could just post a Note instead of an Attended Log. No hit to her stats and still tells the Event Host her impressions from the event.

 

Yes, I could but it would not help me with regard to my personal little terrain project (it's not for any cache, just for myself) as I do not want to cheat there. Every cache I visit in the right way needs to be taken into account. I'm not accepting for myself what a few cachers in my area do to keep their percentage of non traditionals high enough, namely to refrain from logging traditionals they found online as found.

Every T=1 cache I allow myself needs to be compensated by hard work later on as I cannot go for caches with really high terrain.

Link to comment

Cazanne could just post a Note instead of an Attended Log. No hit to her stats and still tells the Event Host her impressions from the event.

 

Yes, I could but it would not help me with regard to my personal little terrain project (it's not for any cache, just for myself) as I do not want to cheat there. Every cache I visit in the right way needs to be taken into account. I'm not accepting for myself what a few cachers in my area do to keep their percentage of non traditionals high enough, namely to refrain from logging traditionals they found online as found.

Every T=1 cache I allow myself needs to be compensated by hard work later on as I cannot go for caches with really high terrain.

 

So, this is all really about a little stats side-game of yours? I thought it was all about socializing and enjoying hikes and mountain views!

 

You know what the usual advice is about FTF hounds that come here complaining about problems in their little side-games.

Link to comment

You go to events for the D/T ratings.

 

No, but T=1 events which are not T=1 would be events I might want to attend and might decide not to attend because they

make it much harder for me to reach a personal goal. That has nothing to do with a game.

 

You don't like that events have a rating that you won't want in your portfolio of finds. That's not our problem. The guidelines are what they are, and you're afraid you'll lose some badge of honor if you end up with stats showing lower than some arbitrarily important personal stat? Give me a break. You're tilting your hand a little too much with why you're complaining about the change.

 

There is no badge of honour. It is just proving something to myself.

As I said I just wish that the T rating fits to what the events are about for me.

I accept the 30 minutes waiting period as something the guidelines require, but I will never see it as the event. Agreeing with a T=1* rating would mean agreeing with the waiting to be the event and not just a compulsory component of the event to fulfill some rule.

 

What you're doing is using personal, subjective measures to play your own side-game to geocaching. You want to see the D/T ratings you want, not the ratings as they are.

 

No, of course I want the ratings to be true as they are. Here comes my point. I accept that cachers who do not go for the hike log a hiking event as attended, but for me the hike is an integral part of the event and that's why I think that the T-rating should be appropriately and rather those log attended without taking part in the central part, should live with a rating which is wrong for them.

 

I'm sure that events can and will be listed with T ratings higher than 1, so long as it is accurate. I'm almost positive that I could see a D/T rating for the hiking caches as I (and Dan O Can in the other thread) have written up could still reflect a higher T rating if you need to hike a mountain to get there.

 

As I told you the T rating in those cases would have to be T=1 in my area (not until recentkly, but meanwhile it is done like that).

The T rating can only be higher if the T rating of reaching the posted coordinates is higher.

 

Of course I do not want to have an inaccurate T rating. If the hike to the summit is worth T=2, then the T rating should be T=2* and not T=1* just because the event starts at the parking lot. Is that too much to ask for?

 

Using T=1* clearly communicates that the event takes place at the trail head and the hike is just something artificial. That is not what I see as an active geocaching event.

 

Having the meeting coordinates at the trail head makes it so much easier to provide the time window than for a meeting at the summit.

 

I do not understand why the T rating needs to be based on what can be enforced. At the summit you can force people to go on the hike, at the trail head you cannot, but still the two events share the same spirit.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Cazanne could just post a Note instead of an Attended Log. No hit to her stats and still tells the Event Host her impressions from the event.

 

Yes, I could but it would not help me with regard to my personal little terrain project (it's not for any cache, just for myself) as I do not want to cheat there. Every cache I visit in the right way needs to be taken into account. I'm not accepting for myself what a few cachers in my area do to keep their percentage of non traditionals high enough, namely to refrain from logging traditionals they found online as found.

Every T=1 cache I allow myself needs to be compensated by hard work later on as I cannot go for caches with really high terrain.

 

Holy crap! After all this foofaraw this is what it is about? What a joke!

Link to comment

Having the meeting coordinates at the trail head makes it so much easier to provide the time window than for a meeting at the summit.

 

I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that hikers in your area are not very good at math? Seems like a relatively easy calculation to me, knowing what pace I typically hike at for a given elevation gain, I can, with relatively good accuracy, determine what time I will arrive at the summit. Other people in my area are apparently even better at it than I am, since arriving at a summit at sunrise is a very popular pastime in my area.

 

It seems that putting the meeting time at the trailhead puts the slower hikers, like myself, at a distinct disadvantage, since it's unlikely I would reach the summit at the same time as the more able bodied participants that inhabit your area. I would therefore feel the pain and loss of not fully participating in the "Hiking Event", and it would feel awkward to claim an Attend in such a scenario, since I was unable keep up from the beginning.

 

Who could blame me if I spent the remainder of my caching career skulking about in mall parking lots, furtively lifting lamppost skirts, having been rejected, laughed at, and outcast by such a group?

Link to comment

I wish the people who disagree with cezanne would stop trying to convince him to take a different view. If they would stop posting, all of these threads would soon fall off the front page. When you get to the point that everyone seems to be decided which side they are on, these threads become a competition for who gets the last word.

 

I wish the people who aren't interested in a thread would just ignore the thread and look at all the threads they are interested in instead.

 

Sheesh, if I posted "guh, wish people would stop talking about this" on every topic that was uninteresting to me, it would be three-quarters of all the posts.

 

OK, I've been called out by both of you for my comment. Yeah, I was obviously being sarcastic. We have what now... three, or is it four threads about this subject, going on for page after page after page, all about ONE person for what is now turning out to be because of a personal side-game. Yeah, I could, and probably should ignore it. But that's my call, not yours. You voice your opinions, I voice mine. That's what free speech is all about.

 

So, Narcissa... guh! Do you wish that I should stop talking about this?

Link to comment

Every T=1 cache I allow myself needs to be compensated by hard work later on as I cannot go for caches with really high terrain.

 

To each there own, but I have to say, as a physical fitness metric, the Terrain rating on this site has to be one of the worst in my book. There is absolutely zero quality control, making comparative data analysis nearly impossible (perhaps even ABSOLUTELY impossible...I'm not sure).

 

You want my advice (rhetorical question), invest in a good fitness tracker. Got my wife one a couple of years ago, and she wears it all the time. It's stylish (even comes in colors), doesn't snag on clothing, and holds a charge for a couple of days. Absolutely the best investment in your health that you can make....Guaranteed!

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