Do reviewers approve TB's to be kidnapped?

[+Twentse Mug]

Hi everyone. At the moment I have more than 300 TB's out travelling. Yes that's a lot. What is bothering me are these TB-prisons with rules in the listing to prevent cachers from taking them. Leave Tb's behind, tb's are goodies (in/out) etc. No way, TB's are meant to travel. Not be kidnapped in some cache for months.

So I made a log to request the owner to remove the lines from the listing. To my surprise, my log has been removed by the reviewer and this TB-prisons can happily continue kidnapping TB's like mine.

Is there a rule that this is to be approved? What do Groundspeak rules say about this?

[Keystone]

Community Volunteer Reviewers have been instructed by Geocaching HQ not to publish caches with restrictions on trackable behavior. The owner of the cache cannot declare that trackables left in their cache "must be traded for", or require that cachers must "leave one to take one."

 

It's always possible that such restrictions may have been added after publication, or the restrictions have been in place for many years -- prior to the above advice being given -- or that an individual reviewer may have missed that advice.

 

By the way, the basis in the listing guidelines for this approach can be found in the prohibition of Additional Logging Requirements. Geocachers may read the restrictions and worry that their log might be deleted if they took five trackables to move towards their goals, without having any trackables to drop off.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Keystone

[+Twentse Mug]

Thank you keystone. Can you give a link to these instructions?

[+Twentse Mug]

Btw, I'm already starting to make all 300+ missions "go to america".

[Keystone]

Thank you keystone. Can you give a link to these instructions?

This is private guidance published for reviewers, so, no.

[+Twentse Mug]

keystone, thank you again. It makes me curious. Why is this only published for reviewers? And what other rules are there we cachers do not know?

[Keystone]

If you would like for the listing guidelines to be 500 pages long, we could add a lot of the material from the training manuals and other resources provided for reviewers. I don't think you want that. "Travel Bug Prisons" is one of many edge cases covered under the umbrella of a published listing guideline, in this case, the ALR guideline.

[+NanCycle]

. . . .

So I made a log to request the owner to remove the lines from the listing. To my surprise, my log has been removed by the reviewer . . . .

 

What makes you say that your log was removed "by the reviewer"? As opposed to by the cache owner?

[+Twentse Mug]

. . . .

So I made a log to request the owner to remove the lines from the listing. To my surprise, my log has been removed by the reviewer . . . .

 

What makes you say that your log was removed "by the reviewer"? As opposed to by the cache owner?

 

The e-mail "Your log has been deleted by xxxxx" with xxxxx the name of the reviewer.

[+cerberus1]

I've seen you mention this in other threads, so seems (to me) an ongoing issue.

Won't get you on the Christmas card list, but did you ever consider posing the question why a Reviewer's getting involved with your posts on cache pages to Groundspeak directly ?

- May be due to turning cache pages into a forum, but (I'd think) he'd still notice why you do it, and could act on the "prison" issue as well.

[+spankybrandonf]

Very interesting topic, thank you all for the good read, considering there is a few tb hotels here in wisconsin that could be considered as tb prisons, since they have in their logs that you have to do even trades 1 for 1 or 5 for 5 and so on.... I am glad to now know that technicaly they cannot do that, kinda fits with the trackable I have in my possesion that I plan to use soon, I recently grabbed a "Jail-break trackable" which has a very descriptive mission, its mission is to be taken to a tb hotel or prison, and you are suppose to place the jailbreak trackable in the prison or hotel, and remove ALL tb's and trackables and only leave the jailbreak trackable, that way i can then move on all trackables in the prison or hotel, I have been waiting for the perfect hotel to use it on..

[+PlantAKiss]

Now I LIKE that idea! Probably an old one but considering TB prisons are a pet peeve of mine, I think that's awesome. Lol Kinda like the old game Kick the Can which was so fun to play!

[+kunarion]

[+spankybrandonf]

love it

[+GeoLog81]

If it was a traditional, then the damage is limited, because most cachers don't read traditional listings, therefore won't stumble upon the TB-prison-clause

 

It's best to educate the users they should ignore such 'restrictions'.

[acire01]

When I first started I made a TB prision and didnt relise it. Talk to the owner.

[+NanCycle]

When I first started I made a TB prision and didnt relise it. Talk to the owner.

 

Your TB Resort still has prison-like language, even though you do say "please." It is not very nice to try to keep TBs in a cache, no matter what you call it; TBs are meant to travel, not to languish in caches.

[+thatbrowncat]

When I first started I made a TB prision and didnt relise it. Talk to the owner.

 

Your TB Resort still has prison-like language, even though you do say "please." It is not very nice to try to keep TBs in a cache, no matter what you call it; TBs are meant to travel, not to languish in caches.

 

I agree that you should let people take more than one travel bug if they want to. The purpose is to keep them moving. I have seen a cache before that was a TB hotel where the owner asked that only travel bugs be placed. No other swag was allowed. It would make for a disappointing cache if no travel bugs were there. No travel bugs, no swag.... just an empty container.

[+L0ne.R]

When I first started I made a TB prision and didnt relise it. Talk to the owner.

 

Your TB Resort still has prison-like language, even though you do say "please." It is not very nice to try to keep TBs in a cache, no matter what you call it; TBs are meant to travel, not to languish in caches.

 

I agree that you should let people take more than one travel bug if they want to. The purpose is to keep them moving. I have seen a cache before that was a TB hotel where the owner asked that only travel bugs be placed. No other swag was allowed. It would make for a disappointing cache if no travel bugs were there. No travel bugs, no swag.... just an empty container.

 

It's rare when a TB hotel actually has a TB in it. TB hotels seem pointless really.

 

I don't like that some COs say 'no swag'. The cache ends up filled with swag anyway. It just goes to show that many cachers like the swag part of geocaching. To forego that part of the fun when they find a swag-size container ain't gonna happen.

 

I say, keep hiding swag size containers but double-think about making it a TB hotel, it'll turn in to a regular cache anyway (unless the cache owner intends to constantly supply their own trackables). They end up disappointing the folks who enjoy trackables AND disappointing the folks who like swag (if they stick to the CO's instruction not to leave swag). .

[Pup Patrol]

When I first started I made a TB prision and didnt relise it. Talk to the owner.

 

It still contains the language of a trackable prison:

 

Please try and limit yourself to one Travel Bug per visit Its not very nice to come and wipe out a Travel Bug hotel...

 

 

B.

[+NanCycle]

Yet another new cache with prison-like language, which must have been added after publishing.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5V1YF_shady-pines-tb-hotel

[+Twentse Mug]

The biggest problem is that some reviewers approve this. At least here in the Netherlands. How to explain the reviewers that travelbugs are NOT trading items. And not items to collect.

[Keystone]

You're welcome to forward the log deletion notice from the reviewer along to Geocaching HQ. The team there who supervise the Community Volunteer Reviewers can then decide whether follow-up is needed.

[Keystone]

Yet another new cache with prison-like language, which must have been added after publishing.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5V1YF_shady-pines-tb-hotel

The language is fairly mild and the reviewer may have let it slip through. You can test it by taking a Trackable without dropping one off. There should (must) be no consequences for doing that.

[+Bohemian1966]

At the moment I have more than 300 TB's out travelling.

 

Dude ! 300 X apprx. $5... If my wife reads this... she is going to make me get a new hobby !

[+Twentse Mug]

Yet another new cache with prison-like language, which must have been added after publishing.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5V1YF_shady-pines-tb-hotel

The language is fairly mild and the reviewer may have let it slip through. You can test it by taking a Trackable without dropping one off. There should (must) be no consequences for doing that.

 

Of course there will be no consequences. What why are these kind of listings approved by the reviewers?

[Keystone]

Yet another new cache with prison-like language, which must have been added after publishing.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5V1YF_shady-pines-tb-hotel

The language is fairly mild and the reviewer may have let it slip through. You can test it by taking a Trackable without dropping one off. There should (must) be no consequences for doing that.

 

Of course there will be no consequences. What why are these kind of listings approved by the reviewers?

The "consequences" are log deletion by the CO who's mistaken about being able to impose trading rules for trackables, or even a nasty email to a finder whose log said "left nothing, took three trackables heading to the west coast because I'm flying there next week." Log deletions and nasty emails are negative consequences and Geocaching HQ could step in and work with the CO to keep that from happening a second time.

 

As for your continuing frustration with your local reviewer, I will add that there are many, many caches that I don't "approve" of, but I "publish" them if they meet the listing guidelines. Here, with this language about trackable trading, we are debating a fine point at the edges of the listing guidelines.