Jump to content

Working with Groundspeak and Reviewers for "active" events


NeverSummer
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

 

Why should a 30km hike be less suitable for an event than e.g. sitting 5 hours at McDonalds and being provided with more calories than needed in 2 days?

 

Because of course, there's no middle ground between a 30km hike or a 5 hour junk food marathon. It's one or the other, and that's it folks!

 

Forgive me - I can't see how that answers the question.

 

Some questions don't need to be dignified with a response. (In this specific case, it's a ridiculous example of a false dichotomy AND a strawman argument.)

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

 

Why should a 30km hike be less suitable for an event than e.g. sitting 5 hours at McDonalds and being provided with more calories than needed in 2 days?

 

Because of course, there's no middle ground between a 30km hike or a 5 hour junk food marathon. It's one or the other, and that's it folks!

 

Of course there is a middle ground. I just asked because the 5 hour junk food marathon has not been questioned regarding the suitability for an event.

 

I realize that you, specifically, can only "socialize" while simultaneously hiking long distance. But maybe, just maybe, deliberately excluding people and/or herding them into a singular activity just isn't what Groundspeak envisions for geocaching events.

 

I did not say that I can only socialize while hiking long distances. I said that I prefer by far socializing while moving.

 

I thought that offering a period of 30 minutes at the beginning of a hiking event (sufficient for logging) that later continues with an event as part of the official event does not exclude any people at all.

 

Why in the world do those who fo not want to go for a long hike profit if others are not allowed to do go for a hike as part of an official event or are forced to cope with a T=1* event even though they went for a long hike?

 

 

I don't really care if you want to have a single person trek-across-the-Andes event. I'm looking at the guidelines, and trying to untangle what is happening.

 

Actually noone was asking for a single person event. I do not want to shape event rules based on my personal preference. I just would like to have fair rules that take into account different preferences and different characters while at the same time keeping in mind that the main target is providing cachers with an opportunity for socializing that appeals to them. The rest would be taken care of by the market and demand and offer. If more cachers enjoy 1 hour events at a pizza restaurant, then those will dominate. Why shouldn't 30km hiking events have a chance too like junk food marathons have? (Both are not the most common event types.)

Link to comment

Actually noone was asking for a single person event. I do not want to shape event rules based on my personal preference. I just would like to have fair rules that take into account different preferences and different characters while at the same time keeping in mind that the main target is providing cachers with an opportunity for socializing that appeals to them. The rest would be taken care of by the market and demand and offer. If more cachers enjoy 1 hour events at a pizza restaurant, then those will dominate. Why shouldn't 30km hiking events have a chance too like junk food marathons have? (Both are not the most common event types.)

 

Surely, there is a reasonably limitation on "socializing that appeals." Maybe a 30km hike is past that reasonable limitation.

Link to comment

 

Why should a 30km hike be less suitable for an event than e.g. sitting 5 hours at McDonalds and being provided with more calories than needed in 2 days?

 

Because of course, there's no middle ground between a 30km hike or a 5 hour junk food marathon. It's one or the other, and that's it folks!

 

Forgive me - I can't see how that answers the question.

 

Some questions don't need to be dignified with a response. (In this specific case, it's a ridiculous example of a false dichotomy AND astrawman argument.)

 

And yet you did respond.

 

Seems a bit odd.

 

Thanks for clearing up my confusion though.

Link to comment

Actually noone was asking for a single person event. I do not want to shape event rules based on my personal preference. I just would like to have fair rules that take into account different preferences and different characters while at the same time keeping in mind that the main target is providing cachers with an opportunity for socializing that appeals to them. The rest would be taken care of by the market and demand and offer. If more cachers enjoy 1 hour events at a pizza restaurant, then those will dominate. Why shouldn't 30km hiking events have a chance too like junk food marathons have? (Both are not the most common event types.)

 

Surely, there is a reasonably limitation on "socializing that appeals." Maybe a 30km hike is past that reasonable limitation.

 

Why it is past that while an event at a fast food place that takes place for many hours is not?

(In both cases assume that there it suffices to visit the header coordinates for an attended log)

 

The event series from which the 30km is taken from seemed to appeal to the target audience and there has been an event with a 50 km hike (several editions) in my home country that has been very popular. For example, last year they had 36 attended logs (and more attendants) - that's more than many event examples that have been cited in this and related threads that are static events.

 

So once again who is hurt if such events take place and if the T-rating fits the proposed activity if it is not compulsory for logging? In my opinion a 30 km hiking event that starts with 30 minutes at a parking lot is more inclusive than 1 hour meeting at a smoky inn which needs to be entered at least for a short moment.

 

More generally, I think that separating event logging rules from rules which events are allowed might be another solution approach apart from not counting event logs at all.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Why should a 30km hike be less suitable for an event than e.g. sitting 5 hours at McDonalds and being provided with more calories than needed in 2 days?

 

Because of course, there's no middle ground between a 30km hike or a 5 hour junk food marathon. It's one or the other, and that's it folks!

 

Forgive me - I can't see how that answers the question.

 

Some questions don't need to be dignified with a response. (In this specific case, it's a ridiculous example of a false dichotomy AND astrawman argument.)

 

And yet you did respond.

 

Seems a bit odd.

 

Thanks for clearing up my confusion though.

 

Yeah, it's odd that people talk about things on a discussion forum. It's especially weird when someone's comment has been misunderstood and misrepresented that they would include additional information to clarify the point instead of answering a line of questioning that misses the point. So odd.

Link to comment

Why it is past that while an event at a fast food place that takes place for many hours is not?

 

I guess that's for them to answer. Nobody appears to be arguing in favour of, or against, anything to do with fast food restaurants and that sort of event does not seem to be impacted, favourably or otherwise, by the recent guideline change.

 

Is there a particular reason why you can't articulate arguments in favour of your preferred events without constantly criticizing other events? Why can't your extreme hiking events stand on their own merits?

Link to comment

Why it is past that while an event at a fast food place that takes place for many hours is not?

 

I guess that's for them to answer.

 

I thought that your statement was that in your opinion (or in general) it is past the reasonable limitation you mentioned. If you just meant that it might be

past Groundspeak's limitation, then of course, this is not a question for you.

 

Is there a particular reason why you can't articulate arguments in favour of your preferred events without constantly criticizing other events? Why can't your extreme hiking events stand on their own merits?

 

The point was not critizing any type of event, but asking for a rationale for a very unbalanced guideline and providing some suggestions to alleviate some of the issues (like e.g. rating the terrain according to the main activity). To make my point that the guideline is unbalanced with a strong bias with respect to some activities, I need to make comparisons. It would not make sense to argue about specific merits of specific types of events in their own right.

Link to comment

 

Why should a 30km hike be less suitable for an event than e.g. sitting 5 hours at McDonalds and being provided with more calories than needed in 2 days?

 

Because of course, there's no middle ground between a 30km hike or a 5 hour junk food marathon. It's one or the other, and that's it folks!

 

Forgive me - I can't see how that answers the question.

 

Some questions don't need to be dignified with a response. (In this specific case, it's a ridiculous example of a false dichotomy AND astrawman argument.)

 

And yet you did respond.

 

Seems a bit odd.

 

Thanks for clearing up my confusion though.

 

Yeah, it's odd that people talk about things on a discussion forum. It's especially weird when someone's comment has been misunderstood and misrepresented that they would include additional information to clarify the point instead of answering a line of questioning that misses the point. So odd.

 

So you never intended your response to be an answer to the question in the first place?

Link to comment

Why it is past that while an event at a fast food place that takes place for many hours is not?

 

I guess that's for them to answer.

 

I thought that your statement was that in your opinion (or in general) it is past the reasonable limitation you mentioned. If you just meant that it might be

past Groundspeak's limitation, then of course, this is not a question for you.

 

Is there a particular reason why you can't articulate arguments in favour of your preferred events without constantly criticizing other events? Why can't your extreme hiking events stand on their own merits?

 

The point was not critizing any type of event, but asking for a rationale for a very unbalanced guideline and providing some suggestions to alleviate some of the issues (like e.g. rating the terrain according to the main activity). To make my point that the guideline is unbalanced with a strong bias with respect to some activities, I need to make comparisons. It would not make sense to argue about specific merits of specific types of events in their own right.

 

Perhaps you would have more success if you focused on the numerous examples of events that involve outdoor activities, and how those compare to what you are aiming for.

 

Your insistence on comparing to events that are so drastically different than your preference really makes it seem like you have no interest in finding a solution. At this point, there have been dozens of very helpful, well-intentioned suggestions, but you keep coming back to this complaint about fast food and sedentary people.

Link to comment

At this point, there have been dozens of very helpful, well-intentioned suggestions, but you keep coming back to this complaint about fast food and sedentary people.

 

I only came back because you questioned an event that involves a 30km hike. What I wrote was not a complaint about fast food and sedentary people - I just had to take another extreme case to argue that the fact that a 30km hike is at the extreme end of a spectrum does not provide an argument against such an event.

 

The 30km hike came into play in this thread as someone posted a link to a recent event cache which involved a 30km hike and was alloed to go for a T=4* rating despite the fact that the meeting point is reachable by car. If the same were possible in my area (or rather everywhere around the world), that would be a success (and is in my opinion a constructive suggestion for this thread).

 

So far noone has made a suggestion on how to cope with the D/T rating issue of events in those areas where the reviewers insist on the new rules that D/T of an event has to refer to the header coordinates.

You replied to a post of mine where I mentioned that I do not think that a T=1* rating for a 30 km hiking event is appropriate. Somewhere in the US this type of event has been published as T=4* event, in my area it would not. Do you think that your comment that 30km events are not reasonable at all was very helpful?

 

I think that there are sides to consider when thinking about events. On the one hand, they should be as inclusive as possible in a certain setting. On the other hand, they should however also make an attractive offer to the target audience. Rating an event they major part of which is a long hike with T=1* simply does not help anyone.

It just reinforces the position that active events are not welcome and activities are only tolerated as side activities not being part of the event itself.

 

If I ever happen to organize an event, it would not be something shorter than 3 hours (like I never would hide a cache needing less than 2 hours). It's not possible to do that in a reasonable way with the suggested workarounds. If you have a suggestion how one can have an active event where the part recognzed by Groundspeak can be at least 3 hours without taking away too much time from the physical activity, let us know. I'd like to know.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

At this point, there have been dozens of very helpful, well-intentioned suggestions, but you keep coming back to this complaint about fast food and sedentary people.

 

I only came back because you questioned an event that involves a 30km hike. What I wrote was not a complaint about fast food and sedentary people - I just had to take another extreme case to argue that the fact that a 30km hike is at the extreme end of a spectrum does not provide an argument against such an event.

 

Well, I think it could be argued that a 30km hike does not reasonably facilitate socializing between enough geocachers to really warrant making it an event.

Link to comment

At this point, there have been dozens of very helpful, well-intentioned suggestions, but you keep coming back to this complaint about fast food and sedentary people.

 

I only came back because you questioned an event that involves a 30km hike. What I wrote was not a complaint about fast food and sedentary people - I just had to take another extreme case to argue that the fact that a 30km hike is at the extreme end of a spectrum does not provide an argument against such an event.

 

Well, I think it could be argued that a 30km hike does not reasonably facilitate socializing between enough geocachers to really warrant making it an event.

 

Well, I have mentioned an event (with several editions) before in my country with a 50 km hike (last year only 42 km hike) that had more than 35 attended logs (including teams with only one account). I know rural meet and greet events with less participants. For me a marathon hike (with quite a lot of height meters) would not be feasible (it is beyond what my body is possible to achieve), but for quite a number of cachers it is something they enjoy and are able to do. My personal performance level is in the lower third in my area - with some respects even lower.

 

The ice skating event that has been degraded to a 1/1 event this year had typically around at least 100 attended logs and more attendants (families etc).

 

There are lots of events that do not involve more geocachers. So how can you (or anyone of us) define what warrants making an event? Do you propose a lower limit on the number of attendants?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

At this point, there have been dozens of very helpful, well-intentioned suggestions, but you keep coming back to this complaint about fast food and sedentary people.

 

I only came back because you questioned an event that involves a 30km hike. What I wrote was not a complaint about fast food and sedentary people - I just had to take another extreme case to argue that the fact that a 30km hike is at the extreme end of a spectrum does not provide an argument against such an event.

 

Well, I think it could be argued that a 30km hike does not reasonably facilitate socializing between enough geocachers to really warrant making it an event.

 

Well, I have mentioned an event (with several editions) before in my country with a 50 km hike (last year only 42 km hike) that had more than 35 attended logs (including teams with only one account). I know rural meet and greet events with less participants. For me a marathon hike (with quite a lot of height meters) would not be feasible (it is beyond what my body is possible to achieve), but for quite a number of cachers it is something they enjoy and are able to do. My personal performance level is in the lower third in my area - with some respects even lower.

 

There are lots of events that do not involve more geocachers. So how can you (or anyone of us) define what warrants making an event? Do you propose a lower limit on the number of attendants?

 

I'm not proposing anything.

 

I think you make some good points in favour of the events you'd like to see when you stop harping on about sedentary people and fast food.

Link to comment

I think you make some good points in favour of the events you'd like to see when you stop harping on about sedentary people and fast food.

 

I'm sorry if it comes across as harping - it is not meant as that at all. Communication over cultural and language barriers is not always easy.

Some people have a job that is physically very active while I'm sitting too much in my work and also several of my sparetime interests are sedentary. I'm also in the constant danger of eating too much and/or the wrong things. I tried to explain why different events settings might be valuable to different people. It was not my intent to classify certain events as good and others as bad.

A 3 hours event at a pizza restaurant (by the way, pizza belongs to my favourite foods, unfortunately) is not worse than a 3 hours hiking event. It's just that for certain people in certain situations one of them might be more welcome (for whatever personal reasons).

 

I'm definitely not someone who looks down on people who for example cannot manage a hike of a certain length or do not think that they can manage it (even if they could). There is a whole lot I cannot do.

 

One of my most special event experiences is related to the ice skating event I attended last year and this year.

 

While ice skating has never been enforced, it has been encouraged and I would not have travelled to Vienna (about 200km one way, more than 3 hours travelling time from my home one way) to attend the event without taking part in the ice skating activity. Before the event I have not skated for more than 30 years and some parts of my body meanwhile suffer from severe injuries. I have been extremely anxious and very nervous and I would not have tried it if I had not known that this event also encouraged others to try to skate again after many years or even the first time in their life. It's a completely different atmosphere at such an event than if only those who are perfect skaters are involved into the skating part. I'd say that at least for me it was worth the effort and some others apparently share my opinion. Yes, in theory I could have went ice skating also outside of a geocaching event. Would I have done it in my special situation? Certainly, no. As I came earlier (before the event started), there was also enough time for socializing in a more relaxed setting than the initial phase.

 

In my experience, active events can be a wonderful chance especially for those for whom certain types/intensities of physical activities are not something they are experienced with.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Well, I think it could be argued that a 30km hike does not reasonably facilitate socializing between enough geocachers to really warrant making it an event.
Enough for whom / what purpose?
+1

 

Since when is the number of people interested in a given event part of the criteria for whether the event is valid?

Link to comment
Well, I think it could be argued that a 30km hike does not reasonably facilitate socializing between enough geocachers to really warrant making it an event.
Enough for whom / what purpose?
+1

 

Since when is the number of people interested in a given event part of the criteria for whether the event is valid?

I'm at a lost to understand the objection to an event that has a higher that 1 terrain. It was clarified back in the thread where reviewers were requiring that events be D1 that you could still have a higher terrain. The idea of the D1 is that in order to get a smiley (i.e. log attended) you just need to show up a the posted location between the start and end time. That was deemed to be equivalent in some way to finding a D1 cache.

 

I personally don't understand why reviewers or Groundspeak should even care about D/T rating for events. Apparently the owners of some challenge caches complained, and this change was made to satisfy them.

 

This is an entirely different issue than whether or not moving events iike hiking should be allowed or whether you need to be at some location for 1/2 hours so that everyone can agree who gets a smiley.

Link to comment

This is an entirely different issue than whether or not moving events iike hiking should be allowed or whether you need to be at some location for 1/2 hours so that everyone can agree who gets a smiley.

 

In some cases it is related because in the case of a hiking event that offers the 1/2 hour period at the parking lot the issue is whether the T rating may be chosen to account for what happens after the 1/2 hour. That's not a case of an artificially bogus D/T rating of an event challenge owners could complain about. If they complain about the fact that someone might end up with an attended log for a hiking event without taking part in the hike, they also would need to complain about a mystery cache someone logs without having solved the puzzle.

 

Allowing D/T ratings that are based on the main activity of the event (besides socializing) and allowing events to span a longer period than the period at the posted coordinates would be a huge step toward acknowledging active events as something not completely unwelcome.

 

A T=4* hiking event which starts with 30 minutes at a parking lot (T=1* reachable) and then spans over many hours would be an acceptable option to me (not my preferred one however, but acceptable in the search for a compromise). The workaround of declaring the 30 minutes at the parking lot as the event and enforcing a T=1* event is not an acceptable option to me. From the smiley point of view, it would suffice to spend 30 minutes at some location, there is no need to enforce what happens outside of the period and to declare the rest as not part of the event.

 

That's why I think that all those issues are related.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Typically, multiple groups of people hike up the mountain together. Most of us aren't too cliquish, so if people are looking for companions for the hike, then they might post a note on the event page, the local geocaching Facebook page, and/or the local geocaching Meet-Up page.

Relying on social media pages and local pages in a sense is cliquish. If a lot of logs are posted on an event or other cache page, some reviewers get angry and delete those (even it's not about discussing anything).

Cliquish how? The Calgary geocaching Facebook page and Meet-Up page are pretty much open to all interested geocachers. The moderators don't exclude people because they aren't members of some "inside" group.

 

As for reviewers deleting event page notes requesting assistance in getting to the location or participating in the event, I'm not aware of that ever happening. But if it happens in your area, then you might want to bring it to Groundspeak's attention.

 

It usually isn't difficult to join up with others, but the primary responsibility generally is put on the individual rather than the organizer.

Which then is another indication why it is not a hiking event which is hosted by the organizer.

At a hiking event people come because they want to use the hike for socializing and they then come with a different attitude towards adapting their speed than

if the hike is outside of the event.

The organizer selects the mountain where the event occurs and perhaps offers advice on which routes to take. I don't think it suddenly fails to be a hiking event just because the organizer doesn't encourage everyone to walk together.

 

If someone else wants to organize a hiking event where they do encourage everyone to walk together, then nothing prevents them from doing so. Most people organize the kinds of events they enjoy. Some people like walking in smaller groups while others might enjoy walking in larger groups.

 

Joining up with others is even easier for the hike down. At the top, where everyone has gathered, it's not hard to talk with others and ask if you can walk down the mountain with them. Usually, there are bigger groups of people heading down, because hiking abilities aren't as much of a factor and more people end up descending at about the same pace. Maybe even the whole group hikes down the mountain together.

Well, for me this would not be helpful at all. I can much easier follow a group's pace on the hike up and on the hike down where I'm really incredibly slow.

Then don't attend the event. Or make an effort to find someone who will walk up and/or down the mountain with you. Or participate in hiking events where everyone is encouraged to walk at the same speed.

 

If I was an "incredibly slow" hiker (either up or down mountains), then I probably wouldn't bother attending hiking events where a large number of people all are encouraged to walk at my speed. Rather than inconvenience so many people, I'd prefer events where smaller groups of people with similar hiking abilities hike up or down the mountain at different speeds.

 

Since I'm not the person who organized that event, I don't know what communication occurred between the organizer and the reviewer. It's possible that the organizer promised the reviewer that she would be at the parking lot from 1:30 to 1:40 and that anyone who showed up between those times could log the event, even if they didn't go on the walk.

It does not matter if she did. Providing such promises even for 30 minutes is not the real issue I have with the new guidelines. It is the fact that only the static part is referred to as event with all the consequences (in terms of D/T rating, official length of the event, attractivity of the official event etc).

 

I find it totally inacceptable to be forced to rate an event which includes a 30km hike with 1* if it starts at a parking lot.

I never said anything about terrain ratings. You said, "I however wondered how it got published." I explained how it might have gotten published.

 

You asked "whether someone was available at the parking lot during the whole hour?" I told you that this wasn't the case.

 

You asked, "Am I right that the event slot of 1 hour was devoted to the walk?" I explained that most of the hour was devoted to the walk but that socializing also occurred before and after the walk.

 

If you want to jump to some completely different tangent, then you certainly can do so without quoting my relevant responses to the questions you asked. This is something you do repeatedly.

Link to comment

Cliquish how? The Calgary geocaching Facebook page and Meet-Up page are pretty much open to all interested geocachers.

 

Facebook is somehow cliquish in itself. In my area almost exclusively those cachers communicate via facebook which are willing to give away their full real name.

 

Moreover, how easy it is to find those pages for people from other areas/newcomers?

 

As for reviewers deleting event page notes requesting assistance in getting to the location or participating in the event, I'm not aware of that ever happening. But if it happens in your area, then you might want to bring it to Groundspeak's attention.

 

Even if they are not deleted in your area, the question is whether how many will dare to write such logs and how many will just decide not to take part (like I would and others I know too).

 

The organizer selects the mountain where the event occurs and perhaps offers advice on which routes to take. I don't think it suddenly fails to be a hiking event just because the organizer doesn't encourage everyone to walk together.

 

The example you linked to does not include any suggestions at all and also no mention that there might exist other channels to find companions.

Your formulation "The organizer chooses the mountain where the event occurs" also seems to suggest that the event is the meeting at the summit and not the hike including the meeting.

 

If someone else wants to organize a hiking event where they do encourage everyone to walk together, then nothing prevents them from doing so. Most people organize the kinds of events they enjoy. Some people like walking in smaller groups while others might enjoy walking in larger groups.

 

There is nothing wrong about that event - I just do not regard it as hiking event. I'm not against that event and welcome that it got published.

However I'm not happy with suggesting that approach to every event host.

 

For me it plays a big role what is part of the official event and what not, something which many here do not seem to care much about.

YOu look at the whole picture and do not seem to care what is part of the event and what not while around here many cachers seem to care to the point that many cachers who hosted events in the past stopped because they do not appreciate that their events get degraded to waiting periods and everything else is not getting the esteem of being part of a geocaching event.

 

 

Then don't attend the event. Or make an effort to find someone who will walk up and/or down the mountain with you. Or participate in hiking events where everyone is encouraged to walk at the same speed.

 

My argument was that the new guidelines make such events almost impossible as the walk/hike is not accepted as part of the official event.

 

If I was an "incredibly slow" hiker (either up or down mountains), then I probably wouldn't bother attending hiking events where a large number of people all are encouraged to walk at my speed. Rather than inconvenience so many people, I'd prefer events where smaller groups of people with similar hiking abilities hike up or down the mountain at different speeds.

 

That shows me very well that you have never been in this situation. Those who have similar abilities than myself do not go hiking at all.

Moreover, it's my preferred way to meet some of the cachers I like to meet.

 

For example, I attended a full moon event where on the hike up I managed to keep in contact with the second group and for the walk downwards I stayed behind with a friend I brought along.

I did not inconvience anyone except my friend who offered this to me in advance - I even refrained from turning my torch on before others used theirs as well.

The advantage of the setting was that I could meet other cachers on the way up and talk to them because the group more or less stayed together and the faster ones waited at two occasions a bit (not for long)

for the slower ones.

 

 

I never said anything about terrain ratings. You said, "I however wondered how it got published." I explained how it might have gotten published.

 

Yes, I know. The additional sentence about the T-rating was referring to the other example mentioned above (the 30km hiking event).

 

I'm sorry for not having chosen the optimal way of replying. It was not my intent to quote you on that.

I just replied to your answer and then added the additional part. That was not a good idea, but I wanted to keep the number of posts reasonably small.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

A day away, and we've derailed.

 

Cezanne, please save the arguing for the other threads.

 

This thread is meant to discuss how one may have found success working with Groundspeak or Reviewers to have an "active" cache published under the new guidelines.

 

Also, this is a place to discuss new features or options that might be additions to the game so that "active" events have a "home".

 

Anyone complaining about the change try to get their ideal event published yet? Try to work with a Reviewer or Groundspeak Appeals to get it okayed?

Link to comment

Since when is the number of people interested in a given event part of the criteria for whether the event is valid?

 

Again, for those hard-of-hearing at the back, I am not proposing such criteria. I am looking at the issue from a couple of different angles.

 

But really, is it possible that there is some point, as of yet not defined, where something just ceases to resemble an event cache? Why is is this mere suggestion such a problem?

Link to comment

 

This thread is meant to discuss how one may have found success working with Groundspeak or Reviewers to have an "active" cache published under the new guidelines.

 

Also, this is a place to discuss new features or options that might be additions to the game so that "active" events have a "home".

 

I made such a suggestion today and then defended it: Allow the T-rating to relate to the activity. The event guidelines do not mention the T rating explicitely - so there would be room for that and it would save many "active" events which would not get submitted as T=1 events.

 

As the first point is regarded, there appear to be regional differences even now. The 30km hike event would not have been published in my area as a T=4* event. There is no chance whatsoever regardless of how much work one might invest to work with the reviewers.

So the single positive example from the US does not help around here.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Since when is the number of people interested in a given event part of the criteria for whether the event is valid?

 

Again, for those hard-of-hearing at the back, I am not proposing such criteria. I am looking at the issue from a couple of different angles.

 

But really, is it possible that there is some point, as of yet not defined, where something just ceases to resemble an event cache? Why is is this mere suggestion such a problem?

 

In post 67, the post which give rise to the post you've chosen to respond to, the specific question that was asked related to a 30km hike - not some point as of yet defined.

 

Engaging in the discussion in the existing context might yield something useful. Trying to bend the discussion to some context that doesn't even exist while throwing out snarky comments around about people being hard of hearing probably won't.

Link to comment

 

But really, is it possible that there is some point, as of yet not defined, where something just ceases to resemble an event cache? Why is is this mere suggestion such a problem?

 

It isn't but then the question is raised how one defines that point and who does it. I intentionally contrasted the 30km hike with another relatively extreme example. Right now we don't have event rules based on how extreme something might be seen by whomever.

Link to comment

I just don't get the whole argument about events and hiking. Maybe I'm missing the point - it happens - but it seems to me that an event in a carpark would likely be a T1, even if most/everyone is going on a 30km hike immediately afterwards, and an event halfway along the 30km hike might be a T4 or more. In any case, both of them would simply have to last for 30 minutes or more at their posted coords to give anyone wishing to attend a reasonable (defined by GS, not me) duration in which to get to the event and socialise with other geocachers. I'm sure I am going to be told I am missing the point, but it really does seem that simple to me.

Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing the point - it happens - but it seems to me that an event in a carpark would likely be a T1, even if most/everyone is going on a 30km hike immediately afterwards,

 

The example event linked to above by Pup Patrol is a T4 event which starts with the meeting in the car park and I'd be happy if the same were possible here.

I rather have those who only visit the parking lot end up with a T4 rating than those who attend the main part of the event with a T1 rating.

If I go for a 30km hike as part of the event - it should count as such. I do not regard an event that takes place for only 30 minutes at one place to be an active event - so it plays a role how we could make it possible that the active part of an event is acknowledged as part of the event and not treated as an outside activity (as an outside activity they can exist independently from geocaching.com).

 

That's the issue.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing the point - it happens - but it seems to me that an event in a carpark would likely be a T1, even if most/everyone is going on a 30km hike immediately afterwards,

 

The example event linked to above by Pup Patrol is a T4 event which starts with the meeting in the car park and I'd be happy if the same were possible here.

I rather have those who only visit the parking lot end up with a T4 rating than those who attend the main part of the event with a T1 rating.

If I go for a 30km hike as part of the event - it should count as such. I do not regard an event that takes place for only 30 minutes at one place to be an active event - so it plays a role how we could make it possible that the active part of an event is acknowledged as part of the event and not treated as an outside activity (as an outside activity they can exist independently from geocaching.com).

 

That's the issue.

 

But the hike is not part of the event. It's something you might do after the event.

 

Put it this way - would you be really proud to tell people about how you attended this T4 event that you literally stepped out of your car to attend?

Link to comment
But really, is it possible that there is some point, as of yet not defined, where something just ceases to resemble an event cache? Why is is this mere suggestion such a problem?
Sure, at some point, it's no longer an event cache. That's a given.

 

But is a 30km hike really on the wrong side of that line? Does a 30km hike no longer "facilitate the social aspect of geocaching"? The 30km hikes I've been on have involved plenty of socializing (plus backpacking and an overnight stay).

Link to comment

But the hike is not part of the event. It's something you might do after the event.

 

If the hike (or other type of activity) is not part of the event, then it's not an active event what this thread is about.

 

Put it this way - would you be really proud to tell people about how you attended this T4 event that you literally stepped out of your car to attend?

 

I would have taken part in the hike and I see the hike as part of the event and yes, then I do not want to end up with T1 (a rating for caches I generally try to keep reasonably small in number for the caches I visit). If the event is just the meeting at the parking lot, I would not attend it at all. And I would not want to host such an event either. Not every event is easily set up as a mid way event, and even if it were one hardly would spend at least 2 hours at a fixed point when doing a long hike. For me a good event needs to last however at least 2 hours.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

As for reviewers deleting event page notes requesting assistance in getting to the location or participating in the event, I'm not aware of that ever happening. But if it happens in your area, then you might want to bring it to Groundspeak's attention.

Even if they are not deleted in your area, the question is whether how many will dare to write such logs and how many will just decide not to take part (like I would and others I know too).

In general, I've found that those who make an effort are more likely to get what they want.

 

The organizer selects the mountain where the event occurs and perhaps offers advice on which routes to take. I don't think it suddenly fails to be a hiking event just because the organizer doesn't encourage everyone to walk together.

The example you linked to does not include any suggestions at all and also no mention that there might exist other channels to find companions.

First, I said the organizer "perhaps" offers advice on which routes to take. No guarantees.

 

Second, in this case the organizer offered this advice: "The trail does split partway up. Keep right to go counterclockwise around the trail."

 

Third, even when the organizer doesn't offer route advice, I don't think the event suddenly fails to be a hiking event.

 

Your formulation "The organizer chooses the mountain where the event occurs" also seems to suggest that the event is the meeting at the summit and not the hike including the meeting.

I suggested no such thing. The hike also takes place on the mountain.

 

If someone else wants to organize a hiking event where they do encourage everyone to walk together, then nothing prevents them from doing so. Most people organize the kinds of events they enjoy. Some people like walking in smaller groups while others might enjoy walking in larger groups.

There is nothing wrong about that event - I just do not regard it as hiking event. I'm not against that event and welcome that it got published.

However I'm not happy with suggesting that approach to every event host.

I never suggested that approach to every event host. In fact, I noted that "most people organize the kinds of events they enjoy. Some people like walking in smaller groups while others might enjoy walking in larger groups."

 

Then don't attend the event. Or make an effort to find someone who will walk up and/or down the mountain with you. Or participate in hiking events where everyone is encouraged to walk at the same speed.

My argument was that the new guidelines make such events almost impossible as the walk/hike is not accepted as part of the official event.

How do you know it's "almost impossible?" Did someone try to create an event where everyone gathers at the top of some mountain for a half hour, say from 11:30 to noon, and mentioned that everyone who wants to hike up the mountain together should meet at the trailhead for a 10 a.m. departure? And this was refused by a reviewer? Care to offer an example?

Link to comment

If I was an "incredibly slow" hiker (either up or down mountains), then I probably wouldn't bother attending hiking events where a large number of people all are encouraged to walk at my speed. Rather than inconvenience so many people, I'd prefer events where smaller groups of people with similar hiking abilities hike up or down the mountain at different speeds.

That shows me very well that you have never been in this situation.

I might not be an "incredibly slow" hiker, but my abilities are limited enough that they have caused me to opt out of many of the monthly hiking events in my area.

 

Moreover, it's my preferred way to meet some of the cachers I like to meet.

You prefer inconveniencing others, and that's fine. I prefer walking with a smaller group of people and allowing faster hikers to walk at their preferred speed, and that's fine as well. Different people can have different preferences.

 

For example, I attended a full moon event where on the hike up I managed to keep in contact with the second group and for the walk downwards I stayed behind with a friend I brought along.

I did not inconvience anyone except my friend who offered this to me in advance - I even refrained from turning my torch on before others used theirs as well.

The advantage of the setting was that I could meet other cachers on the way up and talk to them because the group more or less stayed together and the faster ones waited at two occasions a bit (not for long)

for the slower ones.

If the "faster" group only waited briefly a couple times for the "incredibly slow" group, then the "faster" group wasn't particularly fast or the "incredibly slow" group wasn't particularly slow.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

If the hike (or other type of activity) is not part of the event, then it's not an active event what this thread is about.

 

No, the topic is about working with reviewers and Groundspeak about getting events with activities published. There is no such official thing as an Active Event.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Moreover, it's my preferred way to meet some of the cachers I like to meet.

You prefer inconveniencing others, and that's fine. I prefer walking with a smaller group of people and allowing faster hikers to walk at their preferred speed, and that's fine as well. Different people can have different preferences.

 

When walking upwards I can keep the pace of the average (not the very fastest) when the terrain is not hard (and I do not select such event hikes).

What I said is that I prefer to meet some cachers I want to meet to not meeting other cachers at all.

You need to have the choice.

 

It was you who argued that for the ascent different hiking abilities play a role while for the descent often all go together. For me it's the other way round and that's why the set up with meeting others cachers at the summit is not that helpful for me while it makes perfect sense for others. Clearer now?

 

 

If the "faster" group only waited briefly a couple times for the "incredibly slow" group, then the "faster" group wasn't particularly fast or the "incredibly slow" wasn't particularly slow.

 

I'm incredibly slow downwards - I walked this part alone with a friend of mione and it has been planned in advance in exactly that manner.

The faster group waited a bit for the slower ones (not any person in particular) in the ascent. I thought I described that clearly.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If the hike (or other type of activity) is not part of the event, then it's not an active event what this thread is about.

 

No, the topic is about working with reviewers and Groundspeak about getting events with activities published. There is no such official thing as an Active Event.

 

That's why the thread title talks about "active" events.

 

If the activities are not part of the event (as you argue), there is nothing to work on as then Groundspeak and the reviewers have no influence on what happens outside of what is an event for you anyway.

 

So of course the thread should be about how it can work out to have the activities as part of the event (not as logging requirement).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Since when is the number of people interested in a given event part of the criteria for whether the event is valid?

 

Again, for those hard-of-hearing at the back, I am not proposing such criteria. I am looking at the issue from a couple of different angles.

 

But really, is it possible that there is some point, as of yet not defined, where something just ceases to resemble an event cache? Why is is this mere suggestion such a problem?

Sure Groundspeak could make a guideline like they have for challenge caches

A geocaching event needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A geocaching event may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.

But they haven't and until 30 km hikes becomes so numerous that they displace other events they probably won't.

 

Of course it may be the case that flash mob events of less than 1/2 hour did become too numerous in some areas and TPTB decided to make a rule against them.

 

I think part of the reason for all these threads is that some people feel the pizza parlor event or doughnuts at Tim Horton's events have become too numerous and would like to see more diversity. I'm sure there are areas that still organize day long picnics or perhaps a geocacher softball game; but it seems more and more like all events are the same. Relaxing the restraints on moving events might result in a number of different ideas, not just 30 km hikes.

Link to comment

If the hike (or other type of activity) is not part of the event, then it's not an active event what this thread is about.

 

No, the topic is about working with reviewers and Groundspeak about getting events with activities published. There is no such official thing as an Active Event.

 

That's why the thread title talks about "active" events.

 

If the activities are not part of the event (as you argue), there is nothing to work on as then Groundspeak and the reviewers have no influence on what happens outside of what is an event for you anyway.

 

So of course the thread should be about how it can work out to have the activities as part of the event (not as logging requirement).

 

Well, I reckon this event would still be publishable. It has a number of (optional) activities, including a long and complex one that went away from the coords.

 

Edit: This one too if I added a clear end time.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Well, I reckon this event would still be publishable. It has a number of (optional) activities, including a long and complex one that went away from the coords.

 

Edit: This one too if I added a clear end time.

 

Probably yes, however this is not the type of active event I have in mind. I thought about a physical activity like hiking, a bicycle ride, a paddle tour, not a cache hunt and playing games.

Link to comment

Well, I reckon this event would still be publishable. It has a number of (optional) activities, including a long and complex one that went away from the coords.

 

Edit: This one too if I added a clear end time.

 

Probably yes, however this is not the type of active event I have in mind. I thought about a physical activity like hiking, a bicycle ride, a paddle tour, not a cache hunt and playing games.

 

I think you are splitting hairs. An activity is an activity.

Link to comment

 

I think you are splitting hairs. An activity is an activity.

 

Yes, of course an activity is an activity, but static activities are not excluded by the new guidelines. This thread came out of a discussion about events including a hike/bicycle ride etc.

Those who want to include static activities are not affected by the guidelines.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think part of the reason for all these threads is that some people feel the pizza parlor event or doughnuts at Tim Horton's events have become too numerous and would like to see more diversity. I'm sure there are areas that still organize day long picnics or perhaps a geocacher softball game; but it seems more and more like all events are the same. Relaxing the restraints on moving events might result in a number of different ideas, not just 30 km hikes.

 

Actually I know only of a single event in my whole country that involved such a long hike (the event took place once in each of the last 4-5 years).

 

As the available events are regarded you are right in my area

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=69eb8534-b718-4b35-ae3c-a856a55b0874&lat=47.075650&lng=15.428300&f=1

- that are the active ones (however taking into account the newer archived ones does not change much.

 

Or around Vienna

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=69eb8534-b718-4b35-ae3c-a856a55b0874&lat=48.210100&lng=16.359550&f=1

 

Some years ago the picture was different.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think you are splitting hairs. An activity is an activity.

 

Yes, of course an activity is an activity, but static activities are not excluded by the new guidelines. This thread came out of a discussion about events including a hike/bicycle ride etc.

Those who want to include static activities are not affected by the guidelines.

 

There was nothing static about the activities I had at those events. They were simply optional and there was always someone at the event coords during the event.

Link to comment

There was nothing static about the activities I had at those events. They were simply optional and there was always someone at the event coords during the event.

 

That fits well to the set up of a garden party or a birthday celebration but not so much to an outdoor activity like a hike. It does not make sense to have someone sit for 3 hours at the parking lot while others go for a hike. What you did is perfectly fine for your event, but shouldn't be the norm for all events.

If I want to spend a physically active weekend day and at the same time meet some cachers, I would not choose to attend an event like yours.

Link to comment

There was nothing static about the activities I had at those events. They were simply optional and there was always someone at the event coords during the event.

 

That fits well to the set up of a garden party or a birthday celebration but not so much to an outdoor activity like a hike. It does not make sense to have someone sit for 3 hours at the parking lot while others go for a hike. What you did is perfectly fine for your event, but shouldn't be the norm for all events.

If I want to spend a physically active weekend day and at the same time meet some cachers, I would not choose to attend an event like yours.

 

So gather your friends and go for the hike. Why do you need another smiley for it?

Link to comment

Anyone ever stop to think maybe GS is slowly turning geocaching into an indoor game?

 

It started with puzzles, now this, what's next?

 

Given that traditionals are still the most common cache type by several orders of magnitude, it's going to take a very long time for this to become an indoor game.

Link to comment

Anyone ever stop to think maybe GS is slowly turning geocaching into an indoor game?

 

It started with puzzles, now this, what's next?

 

Given that traditionals are still the most common cache type by several orders of magnitude, it's going to take a very long time for this to become an indoor game.

 

I did say slowly :laughing:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...