Jump to content

Changes to the placing of caches/events in the UK


Recommended Posts

 

So if there was already an event published in Bristol starting at 7.30pm, then you're saying that if another event was then submitted starting at 7.30pm 15 miles away in Bath, that you'd expect the Bath one to be OKed?

 

I don't think you'll get an official answer to a theoretical question. The reviewer will use the new guideline and their judgement. As the crow flies, the distance from Bath to Bristol (centre to centre) is about 10 miles. I would expect the Bath event to be rejected. Why have a 20 mile rule but allow 10? There doesn't seem to be a special situation to consider here.

 

Take a different hypothetical example - an Event in Weston-Super-Mare clashing with one in Newport/Cardiff less than 20 miles away. Here the Bristol Channel comes into play, so it seems more likely the reviewer may allow it.

 

(As I already said, I'd prefer 10 miles as the rule, in which case the Bath event would be allowed).

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

Why should a simple hobby, usually conducted by well meaning, socially minded, environmentally caring, sensible adults of above average IQ and EQ, need a panel of people who like making rules beyond all degree of risk? I’m taking about events. Who the really needs the guiding hand here?

 

If there are too many events to review then simply ask for some more event reviewers. I'’d do it if you could stand a “liberal”. Don’t tie people down to wooden headed rules.

 

Geocachers, you are now being controlled to a much greater extent as to where and when you can meet than you own Government seeks to affect. And through a service you probably pay for.

“And the truth is, now there is something terribly wrong with this community country, isn't there?”

 

(Waiting for the warning, the busting down of my account door until I become one of the “disappeared”).

 

Reviewers, get real, and reflect the culture of the people you are supposed to represent and help organise fun for or move on.

 

Je ne suis pas un relecteur!

Edited by offbeam
Link to comment

I don't think you'll get an official answer to a theoretical question. The reviewer will use the new guideline and their judgement. As the crow flies, the distance from Bath to Bristol (centre to centre) is about 10 miles. I would expect the Bath event to be rejected. Why have a 20 mile rule but allow 10? There doesn't seem to be a special situation to consider here.

 

I do not expect an answer to specific theoretical questions. I would welcome however a statement in this forum why the UK reviewers felt that they need to come up with very rigid rules very far from what is used in other regions of the world (including large cities in the US and very cache dense areas of Germany).

 

I wonder in particular why the rules are formulated so strictly. They do not even mention that other aspects might be taken into consideration than distance and time. So why should anyone even try to fight for an event in collision with the new UK rules or try to appeal than the rules are formulated so strictly?

 

What's for example the issue with having two events within even 5 miles when one is a lunch time outdoor event in a nice park and another one an evening event in a pub (organized by different people and targeted to different audiences and not being side events of a larger event - so completely independent events)? Why does one organizer have to take another date for the planned event?

When the organizer is willing to shift the date, it will not effect the number of events that take place and it will also not effect the number of events to be reviewed. The later will only decrease if rules like that inconvenience and frustrate sufficiently many potential event organizers making them decide to refrain from submitting events to gc.com. I cannot imagine that the UK reviewers want to end up with such a situation.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I must have been one of the first to find out about these new rules (read as: fall foul of), as I had an underground cache rejected within a few hours of this topic being published. I re-submitted the cache, explaining that I’ve been in the small tunnel three times & have seen no bats. Plus, there’s evidence that the local kids use the tunnel, which would definitely deter bats from roosting there. Despite my assurances, about the absence of bats, the reviewer rejected it again & will not publish it until I provide the contact details of the landowner. She patronisingly added; that this shouldn’t be too difficult, seeing as I’d already ticked the 'I have permission' check box.

 

I have quite a lot of culvert caches. And I’m hard pressed to remember one that went through the review process smoothly first time, without my local reviewer not trying to find a reason to reject it. The only time I actually remember this not being the case, was when she was on holiday on two occasions & someone else was filling in for her. It’s not just me, a fellow cacher, in the same area, has come up against the same problems when submitting underground caches.

 

As ‘bat preservation’ clearly isn’t the real reason for this new rule, I still maintain that it’s been introduced solely to make it extremely easy for the reviewers to reject any new underground caches. And as the reviewers seem to have gone into hiding & are not willing to answer any questions regarding this matter, it’s doubtful we’ll hear any evidence to the contrary.

 

I’m no expert on these matters, but I presume that there are other countries that have culverts/caves/tunnels. Does anyone know how many of these ‘other' countries have effectively put a ban on future underground caches, by implementing a country specific rule? I’ve got to say in advance of hearing an answer, if the answer is zero, then I’m feeling that us UK cachers are being unfairly treated (ie. victimised) within the global caching community.

Link to comment

I totally agree we are being treated unfairly. If the reviewers can't make reasonably good decision any longer then its time for a change of Government. Please see all the protest meetings being planned and threads on Geocaching UK on Facebook. I have lots of normal things going on in my life and the works doctor say I'm sane, but I've never been so incensed in my life. I can not believe how autocratic and dull things seem to have become. Viva la revolution.

Link to comment

 

I wonder in particular why the rules are formulated so strictly. They do not even mention that other aspects might be taken into consideration than distance and time. So why should anyone even try to fight for an event in collision with the new UK rules or try to appeal than the rules are formulated so strictly?

 

 

I don't know why they decided on the specific set of statements. But as they are guidelines, I think the "other considerations may apply" was assumed.

 

I tend to look at this from two different perspectives - the general and the specific.

 

From the general perspective: If there are global guidelines which UK reviewers need to follow, and they feel some UK specific details would be helpful so 1) They can be consistent with each other and 2) So we the cachers know in advance, I think that is a good thing. For the Events, while it hasn't happened to me, I am aware events have been refused before because of "stacking". I don't know how often that has happened, or if it is more or less likely to happen with the new guidelines.

 

So in principle, I'm not opposed to local UK guidelines.

 

Then it can be debated, are these specific guidelines good or not? For Events, I think time and distance is OK, but I would reduce both. It seems odd to single out "camping", but I understand that a multi-day "event" aimed at the same people should be one Geo Event per the official guidelines.

 

For underground caches and bats, its not so clear what prompted this. Of course we don't want to disturb bats. We don't want to disturb hedgehogs either (and they are decreasing in number), should we prohibit caches in hedgerows? Or in trees as we may disturb birds nests? It says there have been issues, so some people or group has been complaining I guess.

 

I'm seen the uproar on Facebook. I disagree with those who say "who do these reviewers think they are, why do we need UK rules in the first place". Because of what I explained above. Given they have a job to do, documenting things so they are consistent and transparent seems a good thing. I'm convinced the reviewers aren't trying to spoil our fun. They are doing this with the best intentions.

 

Questioning these specific changes is another. And I'm sure whatever they came up with, there would be complaints. Still, I think these new guidelines could be tweaked and improved, and the reviewers could have done (and could still do) a better job explaining why they made the changes.

Link to comment

I don't know why they decided on the specific set of statements. But as they are guidelines, I think the "other considerations may apply" was assumed.

 

But not mentioned which looks like the intent is to discourage the submission of events not following the new UK rules.

 

From the general perspective: If there are global guidelines which UK reviewers need to follow, and they feel some UK specific details would be helpful so 1) They can be consistent with each other and 2) So we the cachers know in advance, I think that is a good thing. For the Events, while it hasn't happened to me, I am aware events have been refused before because of "stacking".

 

I agree that the general stacking rules are fuzzy and there might be debates - that's however an issue which rather should have been addressed on a more global level. However the new rules eliminate a lot of events which are not incidents of event stacking.

 

If two completely unrelated groups have an event each, for example one in an inn and one at an outdoor venue, this cannot be seen as event stacking. It's just they both happened to select the same day for their event.

For example the outdoor event at noon might be organized by a family with two small children and the pub event in the evening by cachers in a completely different situation of life. Why should the two groups arrange and one move to another day?

 

 

 

So in principle, I'm not opposed to local UK guidelines.

 

It depends. I'm not opposed to special local guidelines which are implied by differences in the legal situation, what's important to take into account with respect to environmental protection, the acceptance of geocaching by government agencies etc

 

I did not comment on the bat related parts of the new guidelines as I'm by far not sufficiently familiar with the local situation. Events are a completely different topic and all the issues with laws, bnad reputation for geocaching etc are not playing a role.

 

That's why I'm opposed to special local event guidelines which go beyond the general event guidelines without no special local reason.

 

It's fine to have a higher degree of consistency at the local level, but not at the expense of creating a great deal of new inconsistency with respect to a more global setting.

Events are not only submitted and attended by locals and we would end up with a big mess if each country has its own event guidelines. We then just as well can have a national geocaching site for each country.

 

The main advantage of gc.com is its global outreach and that should be reflected as much as possible by both the rules and also by the way where the communication takes place. It's very unfortunate that with very few exceptions most European geocaching discussions take place somewhere else outside of the sites of gc.com even when it concerns gc.com.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It may be that part of this furore is down to poor wording in the announcement, and some of the issues could be resolved by rewording it, although the 20 mile/10 hour limits are far too large IMO (a 20 mile range is 1256 square miles blocked out for half a day by every event).

 

For a start nowhere in the announcements I saw was the term "guideline" used, and the language of the text (bold below) is not the language of a guideline, it's the language of absolute rules:

 

Events will be published within a similar time period only if they are more than 20 miles apart (as the crow flies). Events closer to each other than 20 miles will only be published if the end time of the first is more 10 hours before the start time of the next.
Also even if this is being used as a guideline there has been a tendency in the past for UK reviewers to implement guidelines as absolute rules and I suspect many (including me) expect this to happen here, espescially given the language used.

 

Camping events

Camping is a very popular activity among geocachers and long weekend camping trips particularly so. It’s becoming common to have a lot of geocaching events during these 2 or 3 days. This does diminish the value of events as social gatherings as it's usually the same people attending each time.

Who says this diminishes the value of events? This is a purely subjective point of view on behalf of the reviewers, and I suspect most people who attend camping events regularly (do any of the reviewers?) will disagree with this assetion.

 

Here again the choice of language used is poor, note the section quoted from the GS guidelines which uses "guideline like language" such as "should" (and there are other similar examples on the GS event guideline page), whereas the UK reviewers once again revert to absolutes :-

The event guidelines say this:

 

... includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes. Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event.

 

Therefore in the future only one event will be allowed during a camping "long weekend". This event must be on a specific day with a start and finish time.

Link to comment

As I said before, we can moan on here until we are blue in the face, it will not make a scrap of difference. They are quite happy to keep their heads down & leave us to it - hoping we’ll eventually get fed up & roll over.

 

I feel that enough valid points have now been made with regards to event & underground caches. Perhaps it’s now time to take a breath, & wait for someone to pay us the courtesy of answering our, equally valid, questions.

 

We really want to hear the justification for the introduction of these new rules, that have been imposed on UK cachers.

 

……..Groundspeak, you have our undivided attention.

Link to comment

I've seen on FB that the GAGB have reached out to the reviewers, and they have agreed to discuss these changes.

 

I know that many also question the remit or "legimitency" of the GAGB, but maybe this will help - and result in changes, or at least better explanations.

Link to comment

 

I’m no expert on these matters, but I presume that there are other countries that have culverts/caves/tunnels. Does anyone know how many of these ‘other' countries have effectively put a ban on future underground caches, by implementing a country specific rule? I’ve got to say in advance of hearing an answer, if the answer is zero, then I’m feeling that us UK cachers are being unfairly treated (ie. victimised) within the global caching community.

 

I found this cache in Germany which had restricted access periods due to bat activity. I can't say if this was because of conditions placed on the CO by the review team. As you can see if you translate the page - the cache is removed and disabled over winter. Germany tends to be pretty good on bat conservation so it wouldn't surprise me if they have guidelines relevant to them.

 

BTW. If you're ever in the area the the cache is well worth doing as it's an excellent location.

 

I'm off out surveying tonight so I'll see what my fellow ecologists think of the new guidelines and if they also think it odd that they don't include trees/bridges/other structures.

Link to comment
I just received a formal warning off a reviewer who is a moderator on here. Now we aren't even allowed to demonstrate our opinions. Dictatorship comes to mind

Dictatorship ? That's an odd thing to say...

This is a company's forums for its members.

Opinions are okay, and sometimes many of us say what comes to mind, yet still manage to end the day without a "formal warning". :)

Rude comments about staff doesn't win anyone over to whatever you were looking to accomplish.

Link to comment

Dear Magna Defender, I have looked back over your threads and can't see anything wrong. I may have missed it. PM me if you want and if i agree with it I will post it too as a gesture of solidatry. Then I'll tell all my mates to consider the same. Who knows it might go viral. Like I said in an earlier post I expect to be one of the "disappeared" soon. What a different geocache world we may be living in soon from the day when an imaginative, well meaning guy thought I wonder if people will find it fun if I post put this box here and post the co-ordinates on line for people to find. Simple as that I bet he thought. In my life experience any one who wants to yield power in the first place should be disqualified from it and politely ushered to the Fletcher Memorial Home.

Link to comment

 

I found this cache in Germany which had restricted access periods due to bat activity. I can't say if this was because of conditions placed on the CO by the review team. As you can see if you translate the page - the cache is removed and disabled over winter. Germany tends to be pretty good on bat conservation so it wouldn't surprise me if they have guidelines relevant to them.

 

They now require disabling such caches in Germany over the Winter, but most owners of such caches have done it on their own anyway before the topic received more public attention. There is no formal procedure in Austria, but most such caches get disabled over the Winter as either the owners are aware of the issue or are reminded by other cachers.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I must have been one of the first to find out about these new rules (read as: fall foul of), as I had an underground cache rejected within a few hours of this topic being published. I re-submitted the cache, explaining that I’ve been in the small tunnel three times & have seen no bats. Plus, there’s evidence that the local kids use the tunnel, which would definitely deter bats from roosting there. Despite my assurances, about the absence of bats, the reviewer rejected it again & will not publish it until I provide the contact details of the landowner. She patronisingly added; that this shouldn’t be too difficult, seeing as I’d already ticked the 'I have permission' check box.

 

- snip -

 

I’m no expert on these matters, but I presume that there are other countries that have culverts/caves/tunnels. Does anyone know how many of these ‘other' countries have effectively put a ban on future underground caches, by implementing a country specific rule? I’ve got to say in advance of hearing an answer, if the answer is zero, then I’m feeling that us UK cachers are being unfairly treated (ie. victimised) within the global caching community.

Curious, and maybe I just don't get it...

 

When has permission been a Country-specific rule?

You guys can place caches without permission?

 

I had a cave cache once.

Sat through a few Township meetings before they "had time" to talk to us for permission.

Had another on the property (that one had permission too...), and one of the supervisors commented about the lovely pictures of the mill and waterfall on the cache page.

Had restrictions (no night/Winter caching), but was approved.

 

Archived it when kids "discovered" this as a new party spot (an every generation find I guess), but it was due when another asked about the "white bats" inside.

Two bats out of about a dozen did show signs of white nose syndrome.

Link to comment

A double-pager. This forum hasn't had a new one of those in at least five years. Either someone's been amazing, or someone's been... not amazing.

 

So I had a read (full disclosure; I had already seen Facebook implode, so I wasn't totally shocked at the content) and it's the latter.

 

Without wanting to put the boot in - as I respect reviewers and what they do, the time they give, the grief they put up with - I have to say this has been a disaster for them. They've damaged their high standing, placed a question over their 'frog-given right to decide' what's best for UK/ROI/IoM/CI cachers and caused as much confusion as resentment, as much resentment as disappointment and as much disappointment as confusion. There's proper anger in there too, especially on Facebook, where you can't get banned for criticising the leadership..!

 

The good news is I've worked out how to fix this (as I've a huge brain to match my ego) and it doesn't involve writing to Groundspeak (still worth it for their 'unhappy punter' stats though, even if no action is forthcoming) or archiving all our caches, or even failing to renew Premium Membership (still an option in a language every business speaks though...)

 

So, here goes!

 

Generally, a rule on event placement (time and space) is as welcome as rules on physical cache placement. I've no wish to see my event published only for another one to appear the same night, five miles away, with the offer of a pub quiz to gazump my meet's appeal. So-

 

As I understand it, the things which have annoyed cachers - and particularly event hosts like myself - are as follows:

 

i) Lack of consultation on a community matter which, while reviewers don't need to consult on everything, is of so little 'damage' to the game (unlike upset landowners with angry bats, etc) that it is the sort of thing which could have been opened up to event hosts/the wider community rather than a table of 17 plus a HQ lacky nodding along. Maybe there's more in the background I don't know about as a lowly cacher (it can't all be about Leap Day Souvenirs, can it?) but whatever the reasons for this unpopular change, there could have and, I believe, should have been discussion about it outside of The Frog Lair.

 

ii) Lack of warning. There was no need to spring these changes on people. It appears to have hit plans, around Megas and not, in a way which was totally predictable, and totally avoidable. Own Goal again.

 

iii) Flippant replies. Didn't help. 'You can still go to Piratemania. It's still an event' is accurate, but 'You can still go to Piratemania. It was formerly three events on three days, and as no event can last more than a day, and has its own date, that was fine but it's not any more as we've reinterpreted the guidelines to take 'close in time or location' to mean days apart, not hours' is that bit more accurate. You got a Tut from me for that.

 

iv) Lack of clarity. The announced change to the interpretation of the guidelines (ACIG, for short) leaves a lot to be desired. It's wide open to interpretation and all the 'what if' questions which aren't being answered are simply an attempt to understand 'the extent of the damage'. Of course the questions are hypothetical. It's quicker to ask the question than to set up an event page, put it in the reviewer queue, along with another, to see what happens under the refreshed events stacking guidelines. Talk of camping events, when strictly speaking no such thing exists didn't help. Nor did referring to 'events' when CITO events are events, and Mega events are events too. Not clear; boo.

 

v) The change in rules themselves. 20 miles and 10 hours? Figures plucked from a hat, it has been suggested. They're certainly restrictive. No satellite events around an event (bar CITOs around events, or events and CITOs around Megas, but not too many, and not too close, and not, not, not...) - Was there such a problem with 'stacking' that a nuke was brought to a knife fight? One has to assume there was. These figures may prove to be good ones - as good as any - but the promise to review them, at some point in the future, to an angry mob, wasn't much comfort. Especially as the criteria to decide if "not publishing an event was better for the caching community than publishing it would have been" can't really exist outside of a Schrodinger cat box. In addition, the nature of the event should be considered as well as its time and location. Is the target audience between events likely to split attendance, or is one in a cosy pub and one up a mountain far enough apart in concept to be allowed to be closer together in time, or space, or both.

 

To fix things, simply:

 

i) Set up a vote on time and distance between events, both on the same day and across days, with an eye on event nature/type/appeal too. Let the community shape a community policy to deal with a community problem (which must have existed for the ACIG to have been issued).

 

ii) Allow some time between the results being seen and the new, new ACIG being implemented. This will give time to iron out any creases, answer questions to give additional clarity (although a good guideline should be clear in the first place, really) and some time to adjust and rethink event plans, for those planning events.

 

iii) Apologise, as a group, for getting it wrong on this occasion (this isn't to make you look small, it's to make you look big) and drop the flippancy. Real distress (ridiculous as that may appear to some) has been caused. Please keep that in mind when replying to those you have served so well (on the whole) in the past, and whose appreciation and respect are the only payment (bar the odd T-shirt and geocoin) you receive.

 

Those are my suggestions. If you don't like them, I have others :)

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

I just received a formal warning off a reviewer who is a moderator on here. Now we aren't even allowed to demonstrate our opinions. Dictatorship comes to mind

That doesn't surprise me Jack. Dictatorships don't like to be questioned. The only way is to vote with our wallets.

I will set up a Facebook group soon to discuss options regarding UK reviewers and Groundspeak. It will be behind closed doors so to speak but I am sure it will have more that 17 members and a lackey.

Link to comment

Good call Jacaru & Wenmog, I'd like to join that FB and so would some of the people I cache with. I'll contact you separately.

 

This whole thing about events has just not been thought through enough. Personally on big days like Pi, Geosouvenir day, I pick an event from a mixture of factors like closeness, people I know who have said they are attending, and what the venue offers. If I don't like the distance or venue I don't go. Usually its a pub (which lets face it in the uk are not massive and would easily be over-whelmed if 100 people turned up and then people would understandably moan). So my experience is they end up about 20 to 30 people. Choosing something like a family friendly pub is important given the uk weather. Yes, some event hoppers turn up but what's wrong with that. Everyone seems glad to meet them and quickly swap stories. I have certainly made some very good friends from the event hoppers. They are just maximising the social interaction. Look at the psychological dynamics of any crowd. People mix better in small groups and jump form one to another as a way of making friends.

 

Where I live I am surrounded by 4 equal size towns all in 10 miles with 15 to 20 cachers I know in each. So what's being said now is these guys meeting in their hometowns at the same time as others in their hometowns plus a few party hoppers, and a few newbies, and a few randoms is not allowed. The implication is fewer larger events most likely further away for more people where physically challenged cachers or newbies may be put off. Can you imagine telling cyclists when and where they can have their club runs, or golfers just what courses and when they can attend?

 

I am not sure what really is at the heart of these rules changes but it is not how I read people have enjoyed the game to date.

 

I have emailed geocaching HQ and asked for a proper review.

 

In the meantime, for us growing-by-the-day group of dissenters please be aware of the "Down With This Type of Thing" movement and events as being organised.

Edited by offbeam
Link to comment

Where I live I am surrounded by 4 equal size towns all in 10 miles with 15 to 20 catchers I know in each. So what's being said now is these guys meeting in their hometowns at the same time as others in their hometowns plus a few party hoppers, and a few newbies, and a few randoms is not allowed. The implication is fewer larger events most likely further away for more people where physically challenged cachers or newbies may be put off. Can you imagine telling cyclists when and where they can have their club runs, or golfers just what courses and when they can attend?

I think that comparing with other pastimes/hobbies/sports might help put it into perspective for the reviewers, who seem to see a problem that most geocachers don't, and don't see a problem with the way they've tackled it.

 

If you have a Golf Society of Great Britain (GSGB) event arranged at a course near Oxford in the morning and in the evening there's another GSGB event at an Aylesbury course (about 19 miles away) there may be some people who manage to get to both, and perhaps you could argue that it could dilute the events a little if some people leave soon after the Oxford round so that they can get to Aylesbury event in plenty of time. That could be a problem to GSGB, but most likely would be regarded as too trivial to worry about.

 

Would the R&A (regulators of golf) step in a make a ruling (or even a guideline) to prevent this happening, by forcing the organisers to merge the two events together even if that would cause confusion and inconvenience? Not on your nellie! If they tried, people would just laugh and ignore it. The R&A would be ridiculed for suggesting such a rule and their committee would probably have to resign.

 

The main difference is that geocaching events have to be arranged via GC.com, so there is the capacity for the website owners to enforce arbitrary restrictions as they see fit and not have to explain their reasoning. This is what seems to have happened here.

Link to comment

The main difference is that geocaching events have to be arranged via GC.com, so there is the capacity for the website owners to enforce arbitrary restrictions as they see fit and not have to explain their reasoning. This is what seems to have happened here.

 

Which both you and I, and many others, have commented on many times in the past!!

Link to comment

I can't hold my breath much longer, Groundspeak. Have you really nothing to say on this matter?!

 

While you're mulling over your much anticipated response, have a listen to this

.

 

They already have. They support the UK reviewers because they are (expert) Geocachers.

Their word. Not mine

Edited by Jacaru & Wemnog
Link to comment

I'm glad this has come about. The reviewer team in the UK with a few minor exceptions have lost touch with how the game is played nowadays. Many have been reviewers for years and years sometimes a decade. Many of them don't even go out caching anymore. Why are the people making decisions about geocaching in the UK, when they have no idea what is going on out there?

 

I have done many many tunnel caches and have never come across a single bat in any of them. The reviewers are just coming up with excuses just to prevent any out of the ordinary caches going into their review queue.

 

As for the events, you've killed it for most people now. Gone are the days of finding boxes. Most people nowadays are social cachers .

 

Is there any truth in any of this?

Link to comment

I think SimplyPaul has hit the nail on the head with his long post and agree with it.

 

I hope that the reviewers can bear to admit that this time they have got it wrong and reconsider. Which is perfectly OK, we are all human.

 

Philip

Link to comment

I'm glad this has come about. The reviewer team in the UK with a few minor exceptions have lost touch with how the game is played nowadays. Many have been reviewers for years and years sometimes a decade. Many of them don't even go out caching anymore. Why are the people making decisions about geocaching in the UK, when they have no idea what is going on out there?

 

I have done many many tunnel caches and have never come across a single bat in any of them. The reviewers are just coming up with excuses just to prevent any out of the ordinary caches going into their review queue.

 

As for the events, you've killed it for most people now. Gone are the days of finding boxes. Most people nowadays are social cachers .

 

Is there any truth in any of this?

 

Some of it ("out of touch") is an opinion.

 

In terms of facts, I don't know all of them, but I can say:

 

- Yes, some of the UK reviewers have been reviewers for many years. Not sure about a decade, but at least one was a reviewer when I started in 2009. There have also been many new reviewers added in past couple of years (and other reviewers who left).

 

- All the ones I know are also geocachers, and some of them very active ones. But perhaps some don't cache much, I can't say.

 

- I have seen bats myself when geocaching in caves/quarries, I've not disturbed them. I have accidentally disturbed a hedgehog in a hedgerow and a bird's nest in a tree.

 

On the opinion side, I don't like the Event guidelines as they are, but I don't think the majority of events will be impacted.

Link to comment

I'm glad this has come about. The reviewer team in the UK with a few minor exceptions have lost touch with how the game is played nowadays. Many have been reviewers for years and years sometimes a decade. Many of them don't even go out caching anymore. Why are the people making decisions about geocaching in the UK, when they have no idea what is going on out there?

 

I have done many many tunnel caches and have never come across a single bat in any of them. The reviewers are just coming up with excuses just to prevent any out of the ordinary caches going into their review queue.

 

As for the events, you've killed it for most people now. Gone are the days of finding boxes. Most people nowadays are social cachers .

 

Is there any truth in any of this?

 

Some of it ("out of touch") is an opinion.

 

In terms of facts, I don't know all of them, but I can say:

 

- Yes, some of the UK reviewers have been reviewers for many years. Not sure about a decade, but at least one was a reviewer when I started in 2009. There have also been many new reviewers added in past couple of years (and other reviewers who left).

 

- All the ones I know are also geocachers, and some of them very active ones. But perhaps some don't cache much, I can't say.

 

- I have seen bats myself when geocaching in caves/quarries, I've not disturbed them. I have accidentally disturbed a hedgehog in a hedgerow and a bird's nest in a tree.

 

On the opinion side, I don't like the Event guidelines as they are, but I don't think the majority of events will be impacted.

 

Thanks :)

 

That sounds to me like a more balanced view and one I could subscribe to.

 

I can't say I've ever experienced event stacking so don't understand what all the hoo-hah is about but I remember the second event I organised (and last if you don't count the CITO I organised) being frustrated by what I felt were over-prescriptive restrictions arising from the guidelines in force at the time and - if I remember correctly - having a rational discussion about it with anyone in authority being utterly fruitless - which was frustrating enough that I haven't bothered organising any more.

Link to comment

That's the other rub I feel, Team Microdot, the lack of response. We are both valued suppliers* and customers. The reviewers are the processors. HQ the brain, and unfortunately the brain isn't talking to its valued suppliers and customers enough on this. If the processors throw a wobble, or anyone else as a group, then its up to the brains to review. Well it is in my absurdly pathetically liberal altruistic customer focused mind.

 

*I am guilty of not ever setting caches, for current and varied reasons which I am willing to explain. But I do supply as some on here will testify specialist support of in terms of other groups finding of extreme caches and puzzles and at events. That's currently how I give back. What I do know is, and is far more important than my contribution, is that there are more cachers organising events and setting caches than the reviewers. Granted, I greatly respect the enabling via the reviewers, but they like all the other groups, are fallible.

 

Here's to a review along the lines of what Paul suggested. Here's to the analogy that Humphrey extended. Here's hoping for further response (which I have to say HQ have responded to my first email of two if only to say they back the reviewers (which was sterling loyalty but it doesn't make a poor decision any better)).

 

[if I "disappear" you know they've got me.]

Link to comment

That's the other rub I feel, Team Microdot, the lack of response. We are both valued suppliers* and customers. The reviewers are the processors. HQ the brain, and unfortunately the brain isn't talking to its valued suppliers and customers enough on this. If the processors throw a wobble, or anyone else as a group, then its up to the brains to review. Well it is in my absurdly pathetically liberal altruistic customer focused mind.

 

I, along with numerous other cachers on these forums, have enjoyed dialogue with Groundspeak which has been abundantly fruitful - which means that it can and does occur sometimes and that good things come from it.

 

There are other times when I have felt locked out and ignored even - and I have felt very disappointed by that. Apart from anything else, those fruitful exchanges are a lot more fun than the wall of silence.

 

The picture you seem to paint here though of volunteer viewers seems to assign them very little value and, although I know before I say it that I must be wrong, it almost sounds as if you're suggesting that if they step out of line - and by that I mean do anything that the valued suppliers and customers don't like that those reviewers need sorting out by the so called brain of geocaching - which doesn't sound liberal at all :unsure:

Link to comment

I hear the Hitler Diaries have been verified and are definitely genuine. Not my words, the words of experts.

 

I'm saying reviewers are human - hear me out - and apart from His Holiness, that means fallible. Even as expert geocachers.

 

And Godwin's Law brings this thread to a close.

Edited by geohatter
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...