Jump to content

Hiking Events


HikingSeal
Followers 5

Recommended 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.

 

I think you misunderstood something completely. The T-rating issue is a side issue. It's starts with that the changed guidelines reduced the number of available events that appeal to me as many old style event hosts here of such events rather have no event than one that ends up as being a 1/1 parking lot event where all is missing the event is about. The T-rating is then one aspect of it which has an additional meaning for me beyond the fact that if it is used to rate the visit to the parking lot, the message is pretty clear: The event is the meeting at the parking lot which is at the centre of what I and many others find unacceptable and against the spirit of that type of event they would like to hold.

 

I attended the ice skating event this year despite it has been degraded to a 1/1 event much to the unhappyness of the two owners, but it is very unlikely that the event will take place again next year. This is nothing related to me at all.

 

Maybe the fact that you and others cannot understand why I feel so strong about the T rating comes from the fact that for you when using the workaround the meeting at the posted coordinates is indeed the event while I only accept it as a compromise to allow those who have a urgent need for an attended log.

I do not accept it as the real event.

 

Recently a reviewer disabled a cache (not an event) in my country because the D rating was too high in his opinion and he asked for the rating to be changed to 1.5*. So in much the same way I do not appreciate if events are not rated with respect to what they are about. One could rate all puzzle caches as D=1* as when using solutions of others, they boil down to D=1*. Rating events with a physical activity as T=1* feels just in this way for me (regardless of my additional individual reason I happen to care about).

Edited by cezanne
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.

 

What I meant is estimating it for a group. However, I cannot do it for my own except I know the route well and I know the ground conditions and other parameters. Otherwise it can be off by a factor of 2 or more and this is of course not a math problem. It could e.g. be that at some point of the route I end up with 3m for which I need 15 minutes to cope with them. That's pretty much inpredictable.

 

# 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.

 

Can they do it for a group of persons not even known in advance?

Of course sun rise events e.g. are a challenge in themselves. But not for every event it plays a role when one arrives at a certain point. It's just important when to start.

 

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?

 

Well what you address is the difference between a group event hike of the type I have experienced them and what results if the event is just meeting somewhere and the rest is not part of the event.

 

It's a bit like if someone organizes a group hike say for a department or for a larger family consisting of different generations (say small children, older children, parents, grandparents ...) . Then in a good setting where it is about the group the group stays more or less together. It's different to meeting at a restaurant at a given time interval and everyone starts on his/her own and with maybe 1-2 other people who have exactly the same speed. It's about the group activity and not about meeting at the start or end point.

Those people will at other occasions go for hikes which exactly fit to them. At that day the idea is to be spend hiking time together with the others.

 

I'm not arguing against events where the hike is not part of the event. I just state that I miss events where the hike is part of the event. Noone of you needs to host them or attend them. If in your area, the format of not including the hike is well received, that's perfectly fine for me. But why does it need to hold for every hiking event as a rule and why has everyone to be happy with the setup?

 

When I talked about many event host that have up and further that will give up in the future in my country, it has not been about me as I have not yet hosted an event. So it's just true that while most cachers in this thread feel that they still can host and attend events in exactly the way they wish to, that's not true for everyone and in every corner of the world.

 

There are reasons why I prefer hiking events where the hike is part of the event. If the participants are doing all the hike alone or in their usual groups, this is not a hiking event for me - it's an event that tries to encourage for a hike, but where the event is not moving.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

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).

 

I fully agree with you. It does not suit as a physical fitness metric and wrong ratings in both directions happen. I'm not using it as fitness metric (fitness trackers and other tools make much more sense for that).

 

It's just something that attracts my interest to see whether it can work out (based on the existing ratings chosen by the cache owners according to their judgement) despite the fact that I cannot compensate lower terrain ratings by going for some T5 caches or do more some very rare T4 ones.

 

I can do normal 30km hikes, but I cannot do tree climbs or a steep descent on a slippery trackless slope if it only takes 1 minute.

Link to comment

One could rate all puzzle caches as D=1* as when using solutions of others, they boil down to D=1*. Rating events with a physical activity as T=1* feels just in this way for me (regardless of my additional individual reason I happen to care about).

 

I don't understand what you're talking about... Events must be rated D1, but it has nothing to do with T rating. In fact, event can be rated T1 only if the ground zero if wheelchair enabled. You can still make T5 event, for example on the river island or on the climbing rock, or even middle in the montains where the overnight stay is required (it's probably impossible to find such place in Germany, but you can check Ukraininan or Romanian Karpaty).

Link to comment

One could rate all puzzle caches as D=1* as when using solutions of others, they boil down to D=1*. Rating events with a physical activity as T=1* feels just in this way for me (regardless of my additional individual reason I happen to care about).

 

I don't understand what you're talking about... Events must be rated D1, but it has nothing to do with T rating. In fact, event can be rated T1 only if the ground zero if wheelchair enabled. You can still make T5 event, for example on the river island or on the climbing rock, or even middle in the montains where the overnight stay is required (it's probably impossible to find such place in Germany, but you can check Ukraininan or Romanian Karpaty).

 

She is just using the D for puzzles as an analogy.

 

What she is saying is: If the event is listed using the workaround of

 

30 minute official event at posted coordinates (wheelchair accessible)

followed by a hike which is not part of the official event

 

Then T=1 would be the "correct" rating. She would rather rate the T according to the hike. In this case you could rate the T according to the hike, the reviewer may or may not have issue with that.

 

If the event location itself is in the mountains and requires a hike to it, then the T should reflect the hike.

Link to comment

 

Then T=1 would be the "correct" rating. She would rather rate the T according to the hike. In this case you could rate the T according to the hike, the reviewer may or may not have issue with that.

 

If the event location itself is in the mountains and requires a hike to it, then the T should reflect the hike.

 

So the only problem is, the events can't be used to easily fill the matrix? But it's exactly the reason for the new regulations.

 

You can't require people to hike after event in order to log, so setting such event to T4 would mean, you can get T4 without even stretching.

Link to comment

Then T=1 would be the "correct" rating. She would rather rate the T according to the hike. In this case you could rate the T according to the hike, the reviewer may or may not have issue with that.

 

If the event location itself is in the mountains and requires a hike to it, then the T should reflect the hike.

 

So the only problem is, the events can't be used to easily fill the matrix? But it's exactly the reason for the new regulations.

 

You can't require people to hike after event in order to log, so setting such event to T4 would mean, you can get T4 without even stretching.

 

I never will fill the matrix and I'm not interested at all in filling matrices.

 

T=1 is the correct rating if the event is intended to be equal to the meeting at the parking lot and not just contains a meeting at the parking lot, but is about something completely different and would never exist without the hike.

 

T=1 is the incorrect rating if the meeeting at the parking lot is included only because the event cannot be published otherwise and the hike is why the event

has been organized.

 

I did not argue for T=4 - the correct rating depends of course on the case. It could be T=2 or whatever fits the hike which I see as what a hiking event is about.

 

While it's true that some will log an attended log without taking part in the hike, some (many) log puzzle caches without solving the puzzle.

So would it be appropriate to rate all puzzle caches as D=1 (or what relates only to finding the cache)? I guess no. Solving puzzles cannot be enforced either.

Or what about rating a 30km multi cache as T=1 when the final is reachable by car? You just need to sign the log book at the final to be allowed to log a find.

 

Why should those who abuse something be the ones that determine the requirements others have to live up?

 

I still think that the rating should be with respect to those who do a cache/visit an event in the planned way.

 

Of course one solution of this event issue is not to submit events with a hike to gc.com at all, but if that's the only solution it's pretty sad and will make even more cachers with similar interests quit.

 

The message I try to convey and that apparently is that hard to understand for some is this:

The workaround to organize a 30 minutes meeting at the posted coordinates is only acceptable for me and many others if activities like a a hike can be part of the gc.com event and also the ratings are based on these activities. If not, the message is clear every sort of event that could be potentially of interest to me in my area cannot/will not take place at gc.com and what remains are meet and greets which do not even warrant the trip for me.

To me it feels like a hidden way of saying "Good bye. Leave - you are not any longer welcome at gc.com". This extremely painful message will persist even if I had alternatives (via social media which I do not use or other channels).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The beloved ice skating event was enjoyed by almost 100 people this past year even though it was rated 1/1. It does not seem to have been ruined in the eyes of many in your area. They seemed to have a great time. They'll have a great time next year if there is another 1/1 event. I don't see the major damage and the need for all the angst.

 

I am curious about why the prior events at the same location have had these various ratings

3.5/4.5

3.0/4.5

1.5/4.5

1.5/2.5

Link to comment

The beloved ice skating event was enjoyed by almost 100 people this past year even though it was rated 1/1. It does not seem to have been ruined in the eyes of many in your area. They seemed to have a great time. They'll have a great time next year if there is another 1/1 event. I don't see the major damage and the need for all the angst.

 

The owner felt very unhappy about the 1/1 rating and other changes she had to make this year and mentioned that it will have been the last edition.

 

The same fate has happened to other event series in my area (e,g, the full moon series I have linked to) - they usually take place in the first year when a change becomes evident and not again in the later years.

 

Any event in my home town or Vienna will end up with many participants. It's the old timers both as participants and even more as even hosts that get lost.

 

As the ratings of previous editions of the ice skating event are regarded, I did not choose them and did not defend them. I need to mention however that there always has been a fields puzzle where everyone who solved it obtained a small present and solving that picture hunting task while skating was not that trivial and for example, I would not have been able to succeed.

 

1/1 is wrong however in any case and also in that case it demotivated the event hosts. In any case this year considerably less people were to be found on the ice than in previous years. If it continued like that it will be a chocolate eating event for 150 and ice skating for 20 and that's not the idea and will not really motivate someone to host a ice skating event. In previous years logs of those not on the ice were accepted, but there was no need to write a special welcome message for those who do not come for ice skating. It's pretty much absurd to organize an ice skating event and tell the people that the ice skating is not important - we just meet in front of the ice skating area.

 

In the year before I felt worth the effort to spend quite some time (many hours travel time) and money into the event - for a event were most stand around and are not be met at the ice, I definitely will not travel more than 200 km (one way), take a day off and pay a fee. I can stand around at home just as well.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.

You've just lost credibility in your argument.

Your personal goal is based on ratings, not based on actual activity. You won't convince Groundspeak of your position by disliking that they want ratings to be accurate to the event listing, even though the activities can still be enjoyed.

 

I'm not arguing against events where the hike is not part of the event. I just state that I miss events where the hike is part of the event.

Because the event terrain rating no longer necessarily reflects the terrain of the hike, which can still happen. Ain't it a shame.

 

There are reasons why I prefer hiking events where the hike is part of the event. If the participants are doing all the hike alone or in their usual groups, this is not a hiking event for me - it's an event that tries to encourage for a hike, but where the event is not moving.

How is this... I ... I just don't get it.

(that's sarcasm, I do get it, plz don't explain it)

 

Then T=1 would be the "correct" rating. She would rather rate the T according to the hike. In this case you could rate the T according to the hike, the reviewer may or may not have issue with that.

 

If the event location itself is in the mountains and requires a hike to it, then the T should reflect the hike.

 

So the only problem is, the events can't be used to easily fill the matrix? But it's exactly the reason for the new regulations.

 

You can't require people to hike after event in order to log, so setting such event to T4 would mean, you can get T4 without even stretching.

 

Right, however you can still have a T4 event! It just means it's probably a terrain 4 to get to the event.

 

(1) T=1 is the correct rating if the event is intended to be equal to the meeting at the parking lot and not just contains a meeting at the parking lot, but is about something completely different and would never exist without the hike.

 

(2) T=1 is the incorrect rating if the meeeting at the parking lot is included only because the event cannot be published otherwise and the hike is why the event has been organized.

(1) is correct. But it can exist with the hike as an option.

(2) is disallowed. Because the hike cannot be the main event as it does not take place at the posted coordinates.

How about this:

(3) T=4 because the event is at the most difficult part of the hike, and is a stop for 1/2hr lunch. Trailhead waypoint is at the parking waypoint with a disembarking time for those who wish to hike together.

You get everything you want. ...Except that the posted coordinates aren't at the trailhead. Think about it. dry.gif

 

Why should those who abuse something be the ones that determine the requirements others have to live up?

Because Groundspeak wants to provide a service, which they define, that makes the most people happy while maintaining control. Why do anarchists ruin peaceful protests? Same reasoning.

 

Of course one solution of this event issue is not to submit events with a hike to gc.com at all, but if that's the only solution it's pretty sad and will make even more cachers with similar interests quit.

That's your valid opinion. Groundspeak would have taken that into consideration when making the ruling. They still made the ruling.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

I am curious about why the prior events at the same location have had these various ratings

3.5/4.5

3.0/4.5

1.5/4.5

1.5/2.5

+1

 

How does an ice skating venue manage to snag a 4.5 terrain and in two cases a 3.5 and 3 difficulty rating? Not sure how that got by the reviewers and my guess is that this is an example of what Cezanne is complaining about. It also shows me that reviewers certainly have regional discrepancies with events and it's my guess that Groundspeak is attempting to set some international standards. You can't REQUIRE someone to ice skate in order to log the event so I'm not really sure why these ratings were assigned to this re-occurring event. WHY is the host upset about it being accurately rated at 1/1?

 

Terrain Rating: 1

 

*

Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**

Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

***

Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

****

Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

*****

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Link to comment

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.

 

I think you misunderstood something completely. The T-rating issue is a side issue. It's starts with that the changed guidelines reduced the number of available events that appeal to me as many old style event hosts here of such events rather have no event than one that ends up as being a 1/1 parking lot event where all is missing the event is about. The T-rating is then one aspect of it which has an additional meaning for me beyond the fact that if it is used to rate the visit to the parking lot, the message is pretty clear: The event is the meeting at the parking lot which is at the centre of what I and many others find unacceptable and against the spirit of that type of event they would like to hold.

 

I attended the ice skating event this year despite it has been degraded to a 1/1 event much to the unhappyness of the two owners, but it is very unlikely that the event will take place again next year. This is nothing related to me at all.

 

Maybe the fact that you and others cannot understand why I feel so strong about the T rating comes from the fact that for you when using the workaround the meeting at the posted coordinates is indeed the event while I only accept it as a compromise to allow those who have a urgent need for an attended log.

I do not accept it as the real event.

 

Recently a reviewer disabled a cache (not an event) in my country because the D rating was too high in his opinion and he asked for the rating to be changed to 1.5*. So in much the same way I do not appreciate if events are not rated with respect to what they are about. One could rate all puzzle caches as D=1* as when using solutions of others, they boil down to D=1*. Rating events with a physical activity as T=1* feels just in this way for me (regardless of my additional individual reason I happen to care about).

 

I don't think I misunderstood anything. I don't believe that difficulty OR terrain ratings should play a part in why you would or would not attend an event, unless it was, perhaps, to turn down an event where the terrain rating was too high for your abilities (something which I've personally never seen, but can imagine). To do so in any other way is to turn the D&T ratings into a side game. The purpose of an event is to meet and socialize, not to keep score of the ratings.

Link to comment

I need to mention however that there always has been a fields puzzle where everyone who solved it obtained a small present and solving that picture hunting task while skating was not that trivial and for example, I would not have been able to succeed.

 

1/1 is wrong however in any case and also in that case it demotivated the event hosts. In any case this year considerably less people were to be found on the ice than in previous years. If it continued like that it will be a chocolate eating event for 150 and ice skating for 20 and that's not the idea and will not really motivate someone to host a ice skating event. In previous years logs of those not on the ice were accepted, but there was no need to write a special welcome message for those who do not come for ice skating. It's pretty much absurd to organize an ice skating event and tell the people that the ice skating is not important - we just meet in front of the ice skating area.

 

In the year before I felt worth the effort to spend quite some time (many hours travel time) and money into the event - for a event were most stand around and are not be met at the ice, I definitely will not travel more than 200 km (one way), take a day off and pay a fee. I can stand around at home just as well.

So, if I follow cezanne's rationale for rating and defining an event, it would look like this. The ice skating portion of the event should be the actual event and the rating should be based on the fact that people should be ice skating. Therefore, the T rating of the event depends on the ability of someone to ice skate, meaning that those who don't know how to ice skate are the relevant factor in determining the overall terrain rating and therefore is a 4.5 or even a 2.5 (later on), not a 1 T. There is also a field puzzle, which you're apparently supposed to do while skating. Since it's something cezanne thought was a high difficulty task, the difficulty rating of 3.5 or 3 appears to be warranted. Therefore, this ice skating event should be around a 3/4 event. Does that appear to be about right?

 

Problems I have with this.

 

The field puzzle is optional (NOT required to log the event) and would only affect the D rating anyway, not the T rating. You can't change the difficulty based on something that is optional.

 

1/1 is the optimal rating (IMO) and NOT wrong in ANY case, but I could understand a 1.5/1. You can't REQUIRE anyone to ice skate, meaning that ALL logs MUST be accepted. To imply otherwise is against the guidelines. It would be an ALR, which haven't been allowed for quite some time now.

 

Demotivating the hosts - really? Because it was rated correctly they're demotivated to host another event? They can still ice skate, they can still have their field puzzles, they can still socialize, and they can still eat chocolate. Why would a fun looking event like this have to have higher D/T ratings in order to continue?

 

The implication that the "logs of those not on the ice were accepted" tells me that the CO could have, if they wanted to, deleted the logs because they didn't actually DO the event. Cezanne raised the point about the previous logs, telling me that there must be some importance to that fact, otherwise, why bring it up.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

I don't think I misunderstood anything.

 

I think you do when you understand my side comment as my main issue with the event guideline.

 

The purpose of an event is to meet and socialize, not to keep score of the ratings.

 

Yes, of course. That's why for example I attended the ice skating event also as 1/1 event, but with every such event I visit, reaching my goal which is independent from events is getting harder and this only

due to what is a wrong and improper rating in my opinion. If I visit 10 handicapped accessible drive ins, it's my own fault - if I attend an active event and take part according to the intended manner, then I do not think that 1/1 is a fair rating.

 

Would you be happy that in the future all caches are rated with D=1 as you always could ask for help? One could argue that one does not visit caches to keep scoring of the ratings.

 

Moreover, the way the owner is allowed to rate his/her event will among many other things have an influence whether the owner will submit the event at all (at least after the first negative experiences).

 

A 1/1 rating does not fit to an event which only is organized for the moving part and where the moving part is all what it is about.

 

With a 1/1 event the barrier for people not to even bother to take part in an activity of an urban event which is easily reachable becomes very small.

With a higher rating and not explicit reference that those who do not take part are perfectly welcome, the rate of those who take part in the intended way changes considerably to the better.

 

A host of such an event will typically be perfectly happy if many participants come 3 minutes before the hike starts and take part in the hike and will this by far prefer to an attendance to 30 minutes at the parking lot and no participance in the hike. (Of course for gc.com both can log attended.)

 

If one is using the workaround just because it is enforced, the true spirit of what will be the event is not the 30 minutes period. So I think that for many reasons it is insane to rate such an event according to those enforced 30 minutes.

 

Requiring a 1/1 rating for a hiking event makes it pretty clear that only the waiting period is accepted as event and everything else happens outside of the event (the latter is what I object against the most).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I don't think I misunderstood anything.

 

I think you do when you understand my side comment as my main issue with the event guideline.

 

The purpose of an event is to meet and socialize, not to keep score of the ratings.

 

Yes, of course. That's why for example I attended the ice skating event also as 1/1 event, but with every such event I visit, reaching my goal which is independent from events is getting harder and this only

due to what is a wrong and improper rating in my opinion. If I visit 10 handicapped accessible drive ins, it's my own fault - if I attend an active event and take part according to the intended manner, then I do not think that 1/1 is a fair rating.

 

Would you be happy that in the future all caches are rated with D=1 as you always could ask for help? One could argue that one does not visit caches to keep scoring of the ratings.

 

Moreover, the way the owner is allowed to rate his/her event will among many other things have an influence whether the owner will submit the event at all (at least after the first negative experiences).

 

A 1/1 rating does not fit to an event which only is organized for the moving part and where the moving part is all what it is about.

 

With a 1/1 event the barrier for people not to even bother to take part in an activity of an urban event which is easily reachable becomes very small.

With a higher rating and not explicit reference that those who do not take part are perfectly welcome, the rate of those who take part in the intended way changes considerably to the better.

 

A host of such an event will typically be perfectly happy if many participants come 3 minutes before the hike starts and take part in the hike and will this by far prefer to an attendance to 30 minutes at the parking lot and no participance in the hike. (Of course for gc.com both can log attended.)

 

If one is using the workaround just because it is enforced, the true spirit of what will be the event is not the 30 minutes period. So I think that for many reasons it is insane to rate such an event according to those enforced 30 minutes.

 

Requiring a 1/1 rating for a hiking event makes it pretty clear that only the waiting period is accepted as event and everything else happens outside of the event (the latter is what I object against the most).

 

Have you, or anybody you know, yet tried to submit an event such as the sort you are interested in, or is this all still conjecture and theory?

 

I still maintain that considering the ratings in any way, shape or form goes against Groundspeak's stated purpose for events, unless the terrain rating indicates that for some reason you could not possibly attend. If you are afraid of water, you might not want to attend a T5 event on an island... that's fine. But to attend a T5 event on an island because it is a T5 event is misusing the purpose of the terrain ratings and the purpose for geocaching events.

Link to comment

 

Yes, of course. That's why for example I attended the ice skating event also as 1/1 event, but with every such event I visit, reaching my goal which is independent from events is getting harder and this only

due to what is a wrong and improper rating in my opinion. If I visit 10 handicapped accessible drive ins, it's my own fault - if I attend an active event and take part according to the intended manner, then I do not think that 1/1 is a fair rating.

 

You made an active decision to attend a 1/1 event, meaning that it's your own fault for going there. You KNEW in advance it was a 1/1, disagreed with that fact, but still went. That's on you, not on Groundspeak. Did you have fun?

 

If your goal is "...independent from events...", why are you complaining about their ratings so much? Or do you mean that the personal goal and your complaints about accurate D/T ratings of events are independent of each other? If so, that makes more sense, but they ARE related because you feel that they're affecting your ability to reach your personal goal. It appears, at least to me, that you're less concerned about meeting friends/acquaintances, new cachers, and the social aspect (the main purpose behind events) than you are about higher D/T ratings on events.

 

I had a personal goal of getting my D/T average up to a 2/2. I knew, when I attended events, that I would rarely get a rating of 1/5/1.5 or higher. I went anyways because I wanted to stay in touch with friends and meet new people too. At least around my area, we pretty much had events published that met the current criteria and it has not really changed anything in our area. I really didn't (and do not) care if the D/T of the event didn't/doesn't accurately reflect the main purpose of the event. I went to enjoy the company of others and if that means I get a 1.5 T rating for a launch point to go kayaking later, that's fine with me. I'm still kayaking, which I love to do. I don't NEED the 5 terrain rating to validate either the event or my attendance. I went to enjoy the company of others. If there happened to be high T caches on the lake/river/creek, I earned my increased T average that way. If not, I had a great time doing what I enjoy doing, even if it was a detriment to my personal goal.

Link to comment

Requiring a 1/1 rating for a hiking event makes it pretty clear that only the waiting period is accepted as event and everything else happens outside of the event (the latter is what I object against the most).

 

It's not a hiking event.

Of course TPTB can try to separate event from the activities that take place at the event, but most people will associate an event with the primary activity. If that primary activity is a picnic or eating pizza, then voila! your event is listed. If your primary activity is hiking then your event has to have a 30 minute standing around activity added on to it. cezanne feels that this activity becomes primary chaning the event from a hiking event to a standing around 30 minute event.

Link to comment

Yup.

Because hiking events aren't allowed. But there's no reason the event has to be 30 minutes standing around (who would want to host that (or attend that)? #rhetorical), and no reason why hiking can't be an optional/additional activity.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

The beloved ice skating event was enjoyed by almost 100 people this past year even though it was rated 1/1. It does not seem to have been ruined in the eyes of many in your area. They seemed to have a great time. They'll have a great time next year if there is another 1/1 event. I don't see the major damage and the need for all the angst.

 

I am curious about why the prior events at the same location have had these various ratings

3.5/4.5

3.0/4.5

1.5/4.5

1.5/2.5

 

The beloved ice skating event was enjoyed by almost 100 people this past year even though it was rated 1/1. It does not seem to have been ruined in the eyes of many in your area. They seemed to have a great time. They'll have a great time next year if there is another 1/1 event. I don't see the major damage and the need for all the angst.

 

The owner felt very unhappy about the 1/1 rating and other changes she had to make this year and mentioned that it will have been the last edition.

 

The same fate has happened to other event series in my area (e,g, the full moon series I have linked to) - they usually take place in the first year when a change becomes evident and not again in the later years.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

Previous events were clearly used as "easy" grid fillers. The fact that the Reviewer enforced the guidelines and asked that the Event Cache be rated appropriately seems to be a problem with that host.

 

Add in that cezanne simply wants to have caches that are rated above a certain T rating so that a personal goal can be achieved, and I think we have a pretty clear case now for why there's all this push-back, gnashing of teeth, and soul destruction being unleashed on the forum threads.

Link to comment

Previous events were clearly used as "easy" grid fillers. The fact that the Reviewer enforced the guidelines and asked that the Event Cache be rated appropriately seems to be a problem with that host.

 

He could have asked for an appropriate rating instead. 1/1 is not appropriate in my opinion.

 

For an ice skating event in a city there is simply no way to use an approach as the one possible for a hike by hosting an event in the nowhere.

 

I'm unhappy with the fact that such events became degraded to something which is not all related to what they are about and what once made them special.

 

If I have a better chance to meet cachers by not being taking part in the skating, then something goes entirely wrong. A 1/1 rating goes into that direction.

 

 

Add in that cezanne simply wants to have caches that are rated above a certain T rating so that a personal goal can be achieved, and I think we have a pretty clear case now for why there's all this push-back, gnashing of teeth, and soul destruction being unleashed on the forum threads.

 

That's not true. I do not like overrated caches either. What I want is a rating that fits to my activity/the intended activity. I could make my average T rating much higher by doing what the majority does around here - working in teams.

Link to comment

Yup.

Because hiking events aren't allowed. But there's no reason the event has to be 30 minutes standing around (who would want to host that (or attend that)? #rhetorical), and no reason why hiking can't be an optional/additional activity.

 

Optional activites are worthless when it comes to the value of Groundspeak geocaching events. Somehow the message of the new event guidelines for me is: You are in the completely wrong world and what event meant to you all disappeared all in a sudden.

 

It#s like having lived for more than a decade in a dream and being awaked and having to realize that it's what I perceive as ugly event world (for myself).

Link to comment

 

For an ice skating event in a city there is simply no way to use an approach as the one possible for a hike by hosting an event in the nowhere.

 

I'm unhappy with the fact that such events became degraded to something which is not all related to what they are about and what once made them special.

 

If I have a better chance to meet cachers by not being taking part in the skating, then something goes entirely wrong. A 1/1 rating goes into that direction.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, other than maybe you're talking about rating a hike and the ice skating differently because they're in two different locations?

 

Per #2 - Unless I'm mistaken, ice skating was still available to do. You can still have those special memories based on what is happening at the location of the event. Saying that it's not as special an event because it's rated incorrectly (even though it's the same event as in previous years) doesn't really make sense to me. The earlier events were more fun and special because they had higher (and more accurate, in your opinion) ratings and this last one was less fun and less special, even though you did the same thing at the same location? What was worse about this event than in previous incarnations, other than the inaccurate ratings?

 

#3 - So you're saying you spent the entire time ice skating so you couldn't meet more people? Simple, choose to take some time off from skating, sit on the benches/tables, drink some hot chocolate, converse with more cachers, try to encourage them to come out with you, and then go back and ice skate some more. You can't control what other people do at events. You can only control your individual actions. Some will opt to skate and some won't. I really don't think a 1/1 rating will significantly change people's minds when it comes to attendance.

 

I don't consider the event to be just the period of time specified on the event page, but you obviously do. From the time I arrive to the time I depart is what I consider "all" of the event, per my attendance. Those additional/optional activities you consider worthless are what I usually see as priceless. The hiking, the kayaking, the games, the impromptu conversations, and all the other stuff surrounding the specified time of the "event" on the cache page are what I remember about the day, not the 30 minutes specified so a cacher can log an attended. You've taken such a narrow view of what constitutes an event that even I would find it hard to find anything positive about it if I limited it to JUST your definition.

 

I understand your point of view with this topic. The rating should match the activity. The problem is, with the way it's currently set up, it can't and you apparently can't/won't grasp that fact. Instead, people have provided options, based on the current guidelines, that allow you to still have what you want, with some minor modifications. You, having had your cake and eaten it for over 10 years, still want to have it your way. It's NOT going to happen in the way it used to happen. I may not agree with what Groundspeak has done, but I understand what they're trying to do. You obviously don't agree, but you continue to rail against the changes instead of trying to adapt to them. At this point in time, your only two options are to play the way Groundspeak wants or to stop playing. Complaining, ad nauseum, isn't getting anything done, other than perhaps making yourself feel better.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment
(1) T=1 is the correct rating if the event is intended to be equal to the meeting at the parking lot and not just contains a meeting at the parking lot, but is about something completely different and would never exist without the hike.

 

(2) T=1 is the incorrect rating if the meeeting at the parking lot is included only because the event cannot be published otherwise and the hike is why the event has been organized.

(1) is correct. But it can exist with the hike as an option.

(2) is disallowed. Because the hike cannot be the main event as it does not take place at the posted coordinates.

How about this:

(3) T=4 because the event is at the most difficult part of the hike, and is a stop for 1/2hr lunch. Trailhead waypoint is at the parking waypoint with a disembarking time for those who wish to hike together.

You get everything you want. ...Except that the posted coordinates aren't at the trailhead. Think about it. dry.gif

No, we are NOT getting everything we want. Setting up the event at the most difficult part of the hike, and everyone using their own time/route to get there is much different than everyone gathering and hiking as a group to that point. There is no socialization on the walk when everyone is doing their own thing - I don't know about where you are, but most hikers I know will set the pace to the slowest person so the group stays together (for safety and socialization). Hence there is no hike involved with the event (assuming socialization during the hike is one of the reasons for the hike).

This "get what you want" was for this example specifically. What you're objecting to is a different situation altogether.

 

 

Requiring a 1/1 rating for a hiking event makes it pretty clear that only the waiting period is accepted as event and everything else happens outside of the event (the latter is what I object against the most).

 

It's not a hiking event.

We get that! Didn't you read the entire sentence you quoted (I underlined it so you won't miss it)? That it's not a part of the event (an activity outside the event, whether mentioned or not, is still not part of it) is the objection. You respond with as much understanding of our point of view as you accuse us of not understanding what is yours.

I snipped the off-color parts... <_<

 

The "event" is the whole of whatever happens. The "Event Cache" is met with the simplest alteration to the description so that it can be published. Non-commercial, not about a cache hunt, at the coordinates, has start and end time listed clearly, and lasts for at least 30 minutes.

 

If this is about ratings, that's just silly. Ratings are a guide, not a way to fill a grid. So what if an event is a 1/1? Move on!

 

The rest of the event is what matters, and one can still get an "active" event published if they meet the 5 criteria within the guidelines.

Link to comment

For an ice skating event in a city there is simply no way to use an approach as the one possible for a hike by hosting an event in the nowhere.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, other than maybe you're talking about rating a hike and the ice skating differently because they're in two different locations?

 

What I meant is for a event that involves a hike one can in any case end up with a higher T rating than 1* by shifting the posted coordinates from the trail head to the summit (or another area mid way).

For an urban ice skating event one cannot move the location of the area with the ice. In some area one could have an ice skating event at a remote lake only reachable by a hike, but that cannot be done in a big city and the skating areas are small - so something like having a picnic on an island like suggested for events involving a boat trip does not work either.

 

Per #2 - Unless I'm mistaken, ice skating was still available to do.

 

Yes, of course, but if I cannot combine it with a caching event, then I do not need to travel to Vienna on a working day. The ice skating is available at other days too.

 

If the socializing can only happen while standing around, then it's the same unfortunate situation for me than if I happen to visit one of those numerous meet and greet events which do not appeal to me (there is nothing bad about them, they are just absolutely the wrong thing for me).

 

 

Saying that it's not as special an event because it's rated incorrectly (even though it's the same event as in previous years) doesn't really make sense to me. The earlier events were more fun and special because they had higher (and more accurate, in your opinion) ratings

and this last one was less fun and less special, even though you did the same thing at the same location? What was worse about this event than in previous incarnations, other than the inaccurate ratings?

 

No, that mixes up various things. The earlier ratings were not reasonable either (as I said, I would have chosen them differently).

 

I said that the event has changed and the main changes were the changed ratings and changes in the text (both enforced).

 

These changes led to two results: A frustrated owner who will not hold another edition and much less participants on the ice. The idea of the ice skating event has been to get the cachers on the ice and not to have a side activity for yet another urban event.

If you look into all the work the event owner and her daughter invested each year (the presents, creating the log cloth, creating the puzzle etc), it's heart breaking to see which way such events go.

 

 

 

Of course noone can control what others do. What I say is that in earlier years the event went better - there was no log deletion either.

 

 

I don't consider the event to be just the period of time specified on the event page, but you obviously do.

 

Yes, of course that's what it is a Groundspeak geocaching event. Everything else can happen and can be nice and fun, but is not a geocaching event on gc.com.

 

 

From the time I arrive to the time I depart is what I consider "all" of the event, per my attendance. Those additional/optional activities you consider worthless are what I usually see as priceless. The hiking, the kayaking, the games, the impromptu conversations, and all the other stuff surrounding the specified time of the "event" on the cache page are what I remember about the day, not the 30 minutes specified so a cacher can log an attended. You've taken such a narrow view of what constitutes an event that even I would find it hard to find anything positive about it if I limited it to JUST your definition.

 

Don't take me wrong. For me it is about the same stuff what I remember and which is priceless, but if that is not part of the Groundspeak event, then the Groundspeak event is worthless for me.

Moreover, as hiking events are regarded none of the suggested approaches brings back the feeling of a real group hike what I miss very much. That's like replacing a family hike by one where the grandparents, the children, the middle generation etc all go on their hike and just meet in a restaurant. Maybe it is hard to understand what I miss without having it experienced in the same setting.

 

I do not want to limit anyone to my definition. I stressed that I prefer much more flexibility. I do not want to take anything away from anyone. If some wants to host an ice skating event rated as 1/1 - I'm perfectly fine with it. It's people like me from whom something is taken away and not me that wants to take away from someone else.

 

I just feel that if everything is taken away that makes an event special for me from what is the event in Groundspeak's opinion, then Groundspeak events are something very disappointing for me.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
(1) T=1 is the correct rating if the event is intended to be equal to the meeting at the parking lot and not just contains a meeting at the parking lot, but is about something completely different and would never exist without the hike.

 

(2) T=1 is the incorrect rating if the meeeting at the parking lot is included only because the event cannot be published otherwise and the hike is why the event has been organized.

(1) is correct. But it can exist with the hike as an option.

(2) is disallowed. Because the hike cannot be the main event as it does not take place at the posted coordinates.

How about this:

(3) T=4 because the event is at the most difficult part of the hike, and is a stop for 1/2hr lunch. Trailhead waypoint is at the parking waypoint with a disembarking time for those who wish to hike together.

You get everything you want. ...Except that the posted coordinates aren't at the trailhead. Think about it. dry.gif

No, we are NOT getting everything we want. Setting up the event at the most difficult part of the hike, and everyone using their own time/route to get there is much different than everyone gathering and hiking as a group to that point. There is no socialization on the walk when everyone is doing their own thing - I don't know about where you are, but most hikers I know will set the pace to the slowest person so the group stays together (for safety and socialization). Hence there is no hike involved with the event (assuming socialization during the hike is one of the reasons for the hike).

This "get what you want" was for this example specifically. What you're objecting to is a different situation altogether.

 

No, it isn't because this feeling of a real group hike where the slower set the pace and get help is needed has been an essential part of the hiking events I have in mind and it did not happen at all

at events that required a hike to reach the event location.

Link to comment

 

Yes, of course. That's why for example I attended the ice skating event also as 1/1 event, but with every such event I visit, reaching my goal which is independent from events is getting harder and this only

due to what is a wrong and improper rating in my opinion. If I visit 10 handicapped accessible drive ins, it's my own fault - if I attend an active event and take part according to the intended manner, then I do not think that 1/1 is a fair rating.

 

You made an active decision to attend a 1/1 event, meaning that it's your own fault for going there. You KNEW in advance it was a 1/1, disagreed with that fact, but still went. That's on you, not on Groundspeak.

 

Of course it was an active decision and not Groundspeak is to be blamed for it.

It does not change the fact that I think that enforcing 1/1 for such events is wrong and not appropriate to what one participates in.

 

 

If your goal is "...independent from events...", why are you complaining about their ratings so much?

 

I tried to explain it already. Because if the 1/1 is enforced, the message is very clear: The activity is not part of the event as seen by Groundspeak and that's my key objection.

 

 

Or do you mean that the personal goal and your complaints about accurate D/T ratings of events are independent of each other?

 

Yes, indeed.

 

If so, that makes more sense, but they ARE related because you feel that they're affecting your ability to reach your personal goal. It appears, at least to me, that you're less concerned about meeting friends/acquaintances, new cachers, and the social aspect (the main purpose behind events) than you are about higher D/T ratings on events.

 

Actually, my main focus when I decide to attend an event is neither the one nor the other: The main focus is spending my precious time while in parallel being physically active and socialize with other cachers (not one after the other).

 

I had a personal goal of getting my D/T average up to a 2/2. I knew, when I attended events, that I would rarely get a rating of 1/5/1.5 or higher.

 

T=1.5 is easier to cope with - I also end up to visit many caches that are 1.5*. As T=1* is regarded, the events with respect to the new guidelines are real outliers. There are very few T=1* caches in my area and typically those events I appreciate (independently from their ratings) before the change had higher ratings in my area.

 

I have never stayed away from an event due to its rating, but all events that I enjoyed were about an activity and none was a party style event.

 

I find it frustrating that all of a sudden events should be only parties.

 

 

I went anyways because I wanted to stay in touch with friends and meet new people too. At least around my area, we pretty much had events published that met the current criteria and it has not really changed anything in our area.

 

If that's the case, it changes the situation considerably to the situation for those for which a lot changed all of a sudden.

 

I really didn't (and do not) care if the D/T of the event didn't/doesn't accurately reflect the main purpose of the event. I went to enjoy the company of others and if that means I get a 1.5 T rating for a launch point to go kayaking later, that's fine with me. I'm still kayaking, which I love to do. I don't NEED the 5 terrain rating to validate either the event or my attendance. I went to enjoy the company of others. If there happened to be high T caches on the lake/river/creek, I earned my increased T average that way. If not, I had a great time doing what I enjoy doing, even if it was a detriment to my personal goal.

 

If you can do T=5 caches, you had an easy way to compensate later. I do not have this option. For me even T=4 happen extremely rarely. But anyway as I said I never stayed away from an event due to its rating, I find it annoying however if

wrong ratings are enforced and it feels completely wrong to me to rate the meeting on a parking lot (much in the same way as it feels completely wrong to me to call that a geocaching event).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
If this is about ratings, that's just silly. Ratings are a guide, not a way to fill a grid. So what if an event is a 1/1? Move on!
Exactly: ratings are a guide. A T1 event cache at a nearby open space sounds like a meet & greet at the parking lot. A T2 event cache at a nearby open space sounds like an easy hike that might be appropriate for small children, perhaps a mile or two. A T3 event cache at a nearby open space sounds like a longer hike that might be appropriate for older children, perhaps several miles, and perhaps some significant elevation changes. And so on.
Link to comment

Yup.

Because hiking events aren't allowed. But there's no reason the event has to be 30 minutes standing around (who would want to host that (or attend that)? #rhetorical), and no reason why hiking can't be an optional/additional activity.

 

Optional activites are worthless when it comes to the value of Groundspeak geocaching events. Somehow the message of the new event guidelines for me is: You are in the completely wrong world and what event meant to you all disappeared all in a sudden.

All activities are optional. Even the standing around for thirty minutes is optional. In order to get your smiley you only need to attend the event. I'm not sure what "attend" actually means. The consensus seems to be that you show up a the posted coordinates between the start time and the end time. It doesn't even seem to require you to be there for any minimum time.

 

To me it appears that the guideline exist expressly to allow this definition of attended and that they have nothing at all to do with facilitating the social aspects of geocaching or making meaningful connections with other geocachers.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

The rest of the event is what matters, and one can still get an "active" event published if they meet the 5 criteria within the guidelines.

 

The rest of the official event does not exist, that's the problem.

 

If it were that easy with respect to the 5 criteria, I guess you would already have the reply to your question.

 

In my area the event you sketched in your question to Groundspeak would end up as T=1 event when the meeting point is reachable by car.

The hike would not be taken into consideration at all, and that's what I think is wrong.

Rather provide those who go for the hike with a reasonable information than taking into account those who just come to log.

Link to comment

Oh for crissakes!

 

Come to my event.

It is from 8Pm-11PM

It is at the same skating rink we always use.

We will offer optional fun and games and puzzles to keep you interested. No obligation.

Skate if you want.

Talk if you want.

Have hot chocolate if you want.

Sign the same old blanket or even the new technicolor dreamcoat if you want to. No obligation.

You will have as much fun as you want, just like in the past.

It is a 1/1 and if that turns you off then you must not like fun...

Link to comment

 

Come to my event.

It is from 8Pm-11PM

It is at the same skating rink we always use.

We will offer optional fun and games and puzzles to keep you interested. No obligation.

Skate if you want.

Talk if you want.

Have hot chocolate if you want.

Sign the same old blanket or even the new technicolor dreamcoat if you want to. No obligation.

 

 

But that does not match the intent of the event host and also does not match my idea of such an event.

 

There is no obligation by the guidelines, but there is absolutely no reason to repeat that in the cache listing and

also not reason to write things about having chocolate etc

 

The idea always has been "come to skate" while allowing logs of those who came but did not skate. Inviting such logs is however a whole

different type of thing. It degrades the ice skating to something not any longer being the main focus and reason of the event.

Link to comment
(1) T=1 is the correct rating if the event is intended to be equal to the meeting at the parking lot and not just contains a meeting at the parking lot, but is about something completely different and would never exist without the hike.

 

(2) T=1 is the incorrect rating if the meeeting at the parking lot is included only because the event cannot be published otherwise and the hike is why the event has been organized.

(1) is correct. But it can exist with the hike as an option.

(2) is disallowed. Because the hike cannot be the main event as it does not take place at the posted coordinates.

How about this:

(3) T=4 because the event is at the most difficult part of the hike, and is a stop for 1/2hr lunch. Trailhead waypoint is at the parking waypoint with a disembarking time for those who wish to hike together.

You get everything you want. ...Except that the posted coordinates aren't at the trailhead. Think about it. dry.gif

No, we are NOT getting everything we want. Setting up the event at the most difficult part of the hike, and everyone using their own time/route to get there is much different than everyone gathering and hiking as a group to that point. There is no socialization on the walk when everyone is doing their own thing - I don't know about where you are, but most hikers I know will set the pace to the slowest person so the group stays together (for safety and socialization). Hence there is no hike involved with the event (assuming socialization during the hike is one of the reasons for the hike).

This "get what you want" was for this example specifically. What you're objecting to is a different situation altogether.

 

No, it isn't because this feeling of a real group hike where the slower set the pace and get help is needed has been an essential part of the hiking events I have in mind and it did not happen at all

at events that required a hike to reach the event location.

I wasn't talking to you.... <_<

 

Care for more non-sequitur?

Link to comment

 

Yes, of course. That's why for example I attended the ice skating event also as 1/1 event, but with every such event I visit, reaching my goal which is independent from events is getting harder and this only

due to what is a wrong and improper rating in my opinion. If I visit 10 handicapped accessible drive ins, it's my own fault - if I attend an active event and take part according to the intended manner, then I do not think that 1/1 is a fair rating.

 

You made an active decision to attend a 1/1 event, meaning that it's your own fault for going there. You KNEW in advance it was a 1/1, disagreed with that fact, but still went. That's on you, not on Groundspeak.

 

Of course it was an active decision and not Groundspeak is to be blamed for it.

It does not change the fact that I think that enforcing 1/1 for such events is wrong and not appropriate to what one participates in.

 

That's baloney and you know it.

 

The event can still have parts which might increase the terrain rating, but if you don't need to go over that terrain to get to the event coordinates, you don't rate it for that maximum terrain.

 

Hike required to a mountaintop event? Higher terrain rating

Meet at the trailhead and depart on a hike? T1

 

This doesn't stop ANYONE from going on a hike, nor does it improperly rate the hike. Neither does it reduce the event to being "only about the parking lot", especially if you are going to join in on the hike. The terrain rating is not applicable to the hike portion, but the overall event plan will include a hike for those who are willing and able.

 

This isn't that hard....

Link to comment

The rest of the event is what matters, and one can still get an "active" event published if they meet the 5 criteria within the guidelines.

 

The rest of the official event does not exist, that's the problem.

 

If it were that easy with respect to the 5 criteria, I guess you would already have the reply to your question.

 

In my area the event you sketched in your question to Groundspeak would end up as T=1 event when the meeting point is reachable by car.

The hike would not be taken into consideration at all, and that's what I think is wrong.

Rather provide those who go for the hike with a reasonable information than taking into account those who just come to log.

Again, that's baloney, and you know it.

 

The activity can still happen. That makes it REAL. You can still hike, and you can still make an event be about the hike so long as you meet the 5 criteria in the guidelines. We've shown you how to do it, but that doesn't suffice. At some point you just need to drop it...

 

ETA:

If you are worried that people need a rating to know what the hike planned as part of the event might be, one can write that into the desctiption:

 

Event Cache @ N XX XX.XXX W YYY YY.YYY D1/T1

 

Come to my event.

9am-2pm

We will depart from the trailhead for a hike at 9:30am, and hope to return to the trailhead by 2pm.

The hike is 20k round trip, and has some periods of steep elevation gain. I'd rate the hike a D1.5/T2.5--kids can still do this one, but I wouldn't want to be carrying them.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

 

Come to my event.

It is from 8Pm-11PM

It is at the same skating rink we always use.

We will offer optional fun and games and puzzles to keep you interested. No obligation.

Skate if you want.

Talk if you want.

Have hot chocolate if you want.

Sign the same old blanket or even the new technicolor dreamcoat if you want to. No obligation.

 

 

But that does not match the intent of the event host and also does not match my idea of such an event.

 

There is no obligation by the guidelines, but there is absolutely no reason to repeat that in the cache listing and

also not reason to write things about having chocolate etc

 

The idea always has been "come to skate" while allowing logs of those who came but did not skate. Inviting such logs is however a whole

different type of thing. It degrades the ice skating to something not any longer being the main focus and reason of the event.

 

Sheesh, cheech gang, don't you know not to mention food of any kind?!

 

ETA:

Hey, cezanne! Groundspeak's Geocaching.com Event Caches are about socialization--whatever the method--not about skating! :blink:

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Come to my hiking event.

 

Sign-in starts at 9:30am.

 

Departing from the trailhead at 10am.

 

The trail is 10km long, so wear sturdy footwear and come dressed for variable weather. Don't forget to bring sunscreen, bug spray, snacks, and lots of water.

Link to comment

Come to my hiking event.

 

Sign-in starts at 9:30am.

 

Departing from the trailhead at 10am.

 

The trail is 10km long, so wear sturdy footwear and come dressed for variable weather. Don't forget to bring sunscreen, bug spray, snacks, and lots of water.

 

Hey, not fair! She mentioned food and did not get called out.

Link to comment

Come to my hiking event.

 

Sign-in starts at 9:30am.

 

Departing from the trailhead at 10am.

 

The trail is 10km long, so wear sturdy footwear and come dressed for variable weather. Don't forget to bring sunscreen, bug spray, snacks, and lots of water.

 

Hey, not fair! She mentioned food and did not get called out.

 

Sorry, meant to say "snacks if you are a person who might get hungry over the course of a 10km hike."

Link to comment

 

I wasn't talking to you.... <_<

 

Yes, I know, but the post you replied to expressed among others the difference between a group hike and what is sold as hiking event here very well.

While there are people who prefer it the way without the group, there are others for whom it's the other way round.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Come to my hiking event.

 

Sign-in starts at 9:30am.

 

Departing from the trailhead at 10am.

 

The trail is 10km long, so wear sturdy footwear and come dressed for variable weather. Don't forget to bring sunscreen, bug spray, snacks, and lots of water.

 

And what would be your T rating? According to reaching the trailhead or according to the hike?

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