Jump to content

Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines


Geocaching HQ

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

Sorry, but it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T ;) It must be tough to write it as precisely as needed. At the moment the pure text doesn't make any difference. And guess what, a reviewer could easily say: "Hey, not at this place in the airport" even if it's accessible for everyone. That's exactly why all of us the moment are complaining.

I for sure understand that an event in security areas shouldn't be allowed. But that for just write the guidelines that way and everyone else also understands it that way! Otherwise the guidelines aren't worth the paper they are written on if you need to know what people THOUGHT when they wrote them. They need to precise!

 

+1

Hence my appeal to make the guidelines on events explicit. I would like to be able to look up exactly what is allowed and what isn't. We already have lots of issues due to the guidelines being too vague and some reviewers interpreting them differently than other reviewers or the cache owners themselves. This gives a lot of noise in communications over these issues and adds a lot of frustration at both sides.

Edited by NLBokkie
Trying to make my own text less vague too ;)
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

As a cache owner which would you prefer?

  • Seekers don't realise your cache is buried. As a result they post DNF's and NM's. The health score of your cache starts to fall. Seeing an accumulation of negative logs people start to steer clear of your cache.

or

  • Seekers realise your cache is buried. They post Found It logs. The health score of your cache remains positive.

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden.

And it doesn't answer my question.

Link to comment

I see there's a desire from some discussion participants for 50 pages of guidelines that cover every possible eventuality, but I'm seeing that the majority of the feedback about the shorter, clearer guidelines is positive.  15 pages of guidelines that people read are better than 50 pages that don't get read.  As always, unclear cases and "what if?" questions can be resolved during the review process for the actual facts of a cache page, and can indeed be subject to regional interpretation.  For example, events one hour apart and 25 miles apart at two consecutive exits off of Interstate 70 in Kansas could be considered "stacked events."  Applying the same concepts of time and distance to two events in Berlin or Sydney or New York City would make no sense.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

They need to precise!

No, actually they don't.  They need to be flexible, otherwise it becomes a game of catch up.  One day we're hiding caches under lamp post skirts in Walmart, then Boom!  Security tells to get the heck out of Dodge.  It's actually meaningless to be precise, and a waste of time.  Flexibility allows the game to continue to evolve naturally.  Putting on undue constraints based on a handful of incidents is idiotic....well, unless we're talking about Homeland Security, then a knee jerk reaction might be appropriate ;)

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden.

And it doesn't answer my question.

On buried...

The guideline does say, "The only exception is if a property owner gives explicit permission, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page".   

Your Reviewer could say (after receiving your Reviewers note) whether they feel it needs to remain on the cache page, but I'd let it stay if for no other reason to protect myself.    :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

@ Keystone and Touchstone: Personally I agree with you guys, the rules shouldn't be to restrictive. The problem I see in practice here is however that there are reviewers that will interpret any of the guidelines as extremely strict rules, and with their strong interpretation blocking almost any requests for new caches. Examples range from blocking events with unwritten / unpublished proximity rules to blocking Dönerstag-style events in unmentioned restaurants or menus due to them deeming these events 'commercial' (which they so are not!). I hope that making the rules explicit and exactly telling what is and isn't allowed can make us get rid of some of this far too strong application of the guidelines, so we can actually get back to the fun of geocaching instead of having to send in and resend each and every cache application a couple of times. As this is unfortunately what is happening here, and it's making the game tedious and frustrating. I hope you now understand where I'm coming from with the appeal for clearer guidelines.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
9 hours ago, on4bam said:

Found two (what a lousy search method on this forum, no word + author possibility)

Yes there is.

When you start to type in the search window, a drop-down appears that begins with All Content. At the bottom of that list is Advanced Search.  On the Content Search tab, the first choice is + Search by AuthorFill in the author, and the rest of the form, and there ya go. ;)

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:
13 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

As a cache owner which would you prefer?

  • Seekers don't realise your cache is buried. As a result they post DNF's and NM's. The health score of your cache starts to fall. Seeing an accumulation of negative logs people start to steer clear of your cache.

or

  • Seekers realise your cache is buried. They post Found It logs. The health score of your cache remains positive.

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden.

And it doesn't answer my question.

Facile - ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

I wasn't aware that an indication on the cache page that a cache is buried constituting a hint as to the nature of the hide was a complex issue.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the complexities you imagine?

With regard to your question, apart from the fact answering it was something I'd given zero consideration to, on the basis that I'm not a Groundspeak representative I'm not qualified to answer it - so I won't. Or I could just make something up if you prefer, but I'm not sure I could respond to the inherent complexities adequately for your needs.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

On buried...

The guideline does say, "The only exception is if a property owner gives explicit permission, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page". 

The confusion (in my mind) is the term "cache page".  I've seen it applied both before and after publication.  The rest is in my OP.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
47 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:
14 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

As a cache owner which would you prefer?

  • Seekers don't realise your cache is buried. As a result they post DNF's and NM's. The health score of your cache starts to fall. Seeing an accumulation of negative logs people start to steer clear of your cache.

or

  • Seekers realise your cache is buried. They post Found It logs. The health score of your cache remains positive.

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden.

And it doesn't answer my question.

Facile - ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

I wasn't aware that an indication on the cache page that a cache is buried constituting a hint as to the nature of the hide was a complex issue.

It's the either/or scenario that seems facile.  I've already explained why.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I see there's a desire from some discussion participants for 50 pages of guidelines that cover every possible eventuality, but I'm seeing that the majority of the feedback about the shorter, clearer guidelines is positive.  15 pages of guidelines that people read are better than 50 pages that don't get read.  As always, unclear cases and "what if?" questions can be resolved during the review process for the actual facts of a cache page, and can indeed be subject to regional interpretation.  For example, events one hour apart and 25 miles apart at two consecutive exits off of Interstate 70 in Kansas could be considered "stacked events."  Applying the same concepts of time and distance to two events in Berlin or Sydney or New York City would make no sense.

My desire is for simple consise guidelines which say what they mean.

If the guideline means "only in areas of transportation centres which are accessible to people without tickets" then that is what it should say.  If it says "not in or near transportation centres" then it should clarify what is meant by near.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
8 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I liked it better when they didn't allow any exceptions to the 'no burying a cache' rule.  

 

8 hours ago, on4bam said:

Why?

 

 

8 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Because exceptions always lead to gray areas.  Because exceptions always end up becoming the "precedent" that Groundspeak likes to claim they don't allow.  

 

8 hours ago, on4bam said:

There are no grey areas. Buried with permission or not buried is pretty straightforward.

 

7 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

You can think so...but it's not that easy.  

Park management is often more than one person.  What if one person says "yeah, okay, that's fine"...then another member says "hold on, why are people digging in our park?  We didn't give permission."

Maybe what you saw as a harmless container in a hollow at the base of a tree becomes an issue with a landowner because he sees people pulling up dirt around his grandfather's tree?  

Maybe you got permission, so the next guy comes along, sees a buried container and puts down another in the same style in the same property.  Hey...YOU got permission, so maybe permission for him is implied.  

It just seems like a bad idea to start waffling on the issue.  

 

 

Are reviewers going to start asking hiders to certify that each new cache is not buried?  

I see this as leading to a renewed spate of "We saw a hide like this so we thought we'd do it too."  No thought as to the fact that the other hide was on the hider's own property or had specific permission; just that a buried hide was good there, so it is good anywhere. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Keystone said:

I wouldn't obsess over the word "near."  To help posters who are nervous about that, consider one of the goals of the guideline:  the event should take place at a location where local geocachers will find it convenient (and free) to attend.  The event cannot be just for cruise participants, people who happen to be connecting to another flight in Terminal C, etc.

Good to know that's what they meant; it would be even better if that were what they said.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

No, actually they don't.  They need to be flexible, otherwise it becomes a game of catch up.  One day we're hiding caches under lamp post skirts in Walmart, then Boom!  Security tells to get the heck out of Dodge.  It's actually meaningless to be precise, and a waste of time.  Flexibility allows the game to continue to evolve naturally.  Putting on undue constraints based on a handful of incidents is idiotic....well, unless we're talking about Homeland Security, then a knee jerk reaction might be appropriate ;)

I agree that flexibility is important, but being flexible doen't mean being vague.

The current wording for event location is vague and, I suspect, doesn't mean what it says.  It implies a no-go zone of unspecified size around transportation centres.  If that is the intent, then it should clarify the size.

If it actually means "not permitted in areas accessible only to ticket holders" then rewording it would improve clarity and not reduce flexibility.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

No, actually they don't.  They need to be flexible, otherwise it becomes a game of catch up.  One day we're hiding caches under lamp post skirts in Walmart, then Boom!  Security tells to get the heck out of Dodge.  It's actually meaningless to be precise, and a waste of time.  Flexibility allows the game to continue to evolve naturally.  Putting on undue constraints based on a handful of incidents is idiotic....well, unless we're talking about Homeland Security, then a knee jerk reaction might be appropriate ;)

Hmm, not sure if you got me correctly. At the moment the guidelines say "NO event at an airport!". So please, how should anyone know that this simply isn't the fact? That's what I meant with being precise! And guess what: Our local community right away started complaining exactly because of that part... So what's wrong with "...within security relevant areas". Still not completely precise but way better than the actual statement.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, NLBokkie said:

@ Keystone and Touchstone: Personally I agree with you guys, the rules shouldn't be to restrictive. The problem I see in practice here is however that there are reviewers that will interpret any of the guidelines as extremely strict rules, and with their strong interpretation blocking almost any requests for new caches. Examples range from blocking events with unwritten / unpublished proximity rules to blocking Dönerstag-style events in unmentioned restaurants or menus due to them deeming these events 'commercial' (which they so are not!). I hope that making the rules explicit and exactly telling what is and isn't allowed can make us get rid of some of this far too strong application of the guidelines, so we can actually get back to the fun of geocaching instead of having to send in and resend each and every cache application a couple of times. As this is unfortunately what is happening here, and it's making the game tedious and frustrating. I hope you now understand where I'm coming from with the appeal for clearer guidelines.

 

16 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I agree that flexibility is important, but being flexible doen't mean being vague.

The current wording for event location is vague and, I suspect, doesn't mean what it says.  It implies a no-go zone of unspecified size around transportation centres.  If that is the intent, then it should clarify the size.

If it actually means "not permitted in areas accessible only to ticket holders" then rewording it would improve clarity and not reduce flexibility.

Groundspeak, in its infinite wisdom, also has a place for the "exceptions" that you allude to, which, if properly maintained and updated, should answer all your questions.  If something is missing, which has caused you concern, I'm sure your local Reviewer would be happy to update your regional page to reflect the local concern.  Link for reference:

 

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Home

The Wiki can be locally specific.  The Guidelines are, and always should be, a global context for the game.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

I'm guessing that your local Reviewers are well aware of this, and are probably aware of the restrictions in the U.S in our post 9/11 world.  Just an FYI, since you don't appear to understand the nuance, in the U.S., only ticketed passengers can get beyond a certain point in most domestic airline terminals.  Unfortunately, for most airports I've been to in the U.S., most of the food venues are inside this secure area, hence, I think the Guideline clarification spells out pretty clearly that inside the terminal area, you won't be allowed to have an Event.

But the situation in the USA is the exception, not the norm.  I've been to a dozen domestic terminals in Australia and a few in Europe and all of them have areas groundside with food halls (or at least a cafe).  In order to maximise flexibility, the guidelines should cater to the norm and the exception should appear in the US wiki.

The Guideline clarification does, indeed, spell out pretty clearly that inside the terminal area, you won't be allowed to have an Event.  But it also says, pretty clearly, that near an airport you won't be able to have an event.  That takes it way beyond the scope of restricted/public access.

Keystone suggested that we shouldn't obsess on the word "near", however, the folk who wrote the guideline included "or near" so we do have to try to figure out what they meant.  Of course, it would be nice if they popped in with a clarification.

As an aside, do American railway stations have a similar restriction to the domestic airports?  Is there an are where non-ticket holders cannot enter and do the public areas typically have places to eat?  Is it reasonable to treat railway stations in the same way as airports?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

But the situation in the USA is the exception, not the norm.

Quite the contrary.  Your premise is erroneous.  Air travel by number of passengers in the U.S. far exceeds several countries combined (nearly double the second place contender, China):

141297e9-2f3c-451e-88db-c303dfa5c33c.jpg

So quite the contrary in this particular situation.  I believe that Groundspeak is perfectly justified in giving this portion of the Guidelines a more American emphasis.

Link to comment

I don't see why the total number of passengers is relevant to a discussion about where geocachers are allowed to hold events.  The USA is one country out of more than 150 so the vast majority of countries don't have the problem.   It would seem logical to have a guideline for all countries with an exception for one, rather than a guideline for one and the exception in every other regional wiki.

 

BUT:  all this debate should be moot.  We both agree that events should not be held in those parts of transport centres which have access restricted to ticketed passengers and authorised staff.  If the guidelines stated that in simple words, there would be no need for any exceptions.

One thing which is niggling at the back of my mind is the fact that this Release Notes thread is being treated differently from other recent examples.  The discussion thread has been moved out of the Release Notes Forum into the Geocaching Topics Forum, which may not be a bad thing, but it is also the only recent thread where the OP does not include a statement that one or more named lackeys will be monitoring the thread and will be available to answer questions.  I have felt that having a specific lackey monitoring the threads was a very positive move and I do hope that the absence of such a statement was an oversight, rather than a shift in policy. It may, or may not, be relevant that no lackey has yet commented in this thread.

Edited by Gill & Tony
Link to comment
9 hours ago, monsterbox said:

Hmm, not sure if you got me correctly. At the moment the guidelines say "NO event at an airport!". So please, how should anyone know that this simply isn't the fact? That's what I meant with being precise! And guess what: Our local community right away started complaining exactly because of that part... So what's wrong with "...within security relevant areas". Still not completely precise but way better than the actual statement.

Well, lets be honest, having lived in a country where there were no caches near the airport and transit passengers would quite often get a voa to just host an event outside the airport (and usually during working hours), and nobody would show up because it was too far out of town I can understand this rule. I mean, it's clear that these events only served the purpose of scoring another 'country point' and not of meeting other cachers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, terratin said:

Well, lets be honest, having lived in a country where there were no caches near the airport and transit passengers would quite often get a voa to just host an event outside the airport (and usually during working hours), and nobody would show up because it was too far out of town I can understand this rule. I mean, it's clear that these events only served the purpose of scoring another 'country point' and not of meeting other cachers.

That may be true for airports, but the guideline doesn't just cover those, it covers all "transportation centres" and specifically includes cruise ship ports and train stations. In Sydney at least, the cruise ship terminal is in the heart of the city so is easily accessible to the locals and as for train stations, just about every town and suburb that has one has had its retail district grow up around it so the stations are surrounded by cafes, eateries and places for people to gather, except it seems geocachers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, terratin said:

Well, lets be honest, having lived in a country where there were no caches near the airport and transit passengers would quite often get a voa to just host an event outside the airport (and usually during working hours), and nobody would show up because it was too far out of town I can understand this rule. I mean, it's clear that these events only served the purpose of scoring another 'country point' and not of meeting other cachers.

Even accepting your experience and even assuming that someone organizing an event simply for the smiley is somehow wrong, why should this rule apply worldwide?  There are plenty or regional airports in Australia and, I suspect, in the USA and other countries, close to town where locals could easily get to an event and meet up with an overseas visitor.

 

Link to comment

Don't forget that even with "airports" you don't have to think only JFK/ORD/LHR but smaller airport too. I think that an event in OST (IATA code) (ICAO=EBOS) would't even be a bad location. Easy to get to, plenty of parking, cheap food/drink. The airport restaurant is even used a lot by (mostly older) tourists/locals alike because of the democratic prices and panoramic runway view. EBKT is even smaller also has a panoramic viewing area and upstairs restaurant/café with outside viewing terrace. It's all open to the public.

What about having an event during an airshow?

Restricting events in secure areas is a no-brainer but any public accessible area should be no problem.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Don't forget that even with "airports" you don't have to think only JFK/ORD/LHR but smaller airport too. I think that an event in OST (IATA code) (ICAO=EBOS) would't even be a bad location. Easy to get to, plenty of parking, cheap food/drink. The airport restaurant is even used a lot by (mostly older) tourists/locals alike because of the democratic prices and panoramic runway view. EBKT is even smaller also has a panoramic viewing area and upstairs restaurant/café with outside viewing terrace. It's all open to the public.

What about having an event during an airshow?

Restricting events in secure areas is a no-brainer but any public accessible area should be no problem.

 

+1

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Touchstone said:
15 hours ago, monsterbox said:

Here in Munich (as well as many other places around) this would easily include the airports and train stations as they are easily accessible for everyone. Free anyways :) So what to do now? Ignore that rule in Germany as it doesn't make any sense over here?

I'm guessing that your local Reviewers are well aware of this, and are probably aware of the restrictions in the U.S in our post 9/11 world.  Just an FYI, since you don't appear to understand the nuance, in the U.S., only ticketed passengers can get beyond a certain point in most domestic airline terminals.

That's pretty much the case in every airport I've been to outside the U.S. as well.  In some cases, the restriction is even more strict.  At Bole airport in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, one can't enter the terminal at all (in fact, they won;t people to wait just outside the doors, but instead have to wait across the road) if you don't have a ticket.  One can, however, purchase a voucher that will allow non-ticket passengers to enter the terminal but a boarding pass is still required (as it is pretty much everywhere) to go through security to the "air side".  At Changi airport in Singapore (the best in the world, IMHO) security screening is done at each gate so those without a boarding pass can walk around the terminals to shop and visit many of the attractions in the terminal.  That includes the Butterfly garden room where there is a traditional cache to be found.  There's also a transit hotel (more than one actually) which has a pool and jacuzzi.  It's free for guests at the hotel but others can use it for a fee.

  Pretty much every airport of a reasonable size has one or more nearby "airport hotels".  Most would have a bar or some place for a small gathering of people.  Even our local airport, which only has 4 gates (I've never seen more than two used at any one time), has a airport hotel within walking distance.

My father is on the board for a local municipal airport.  There's a nice, public restaurant in the "terminal".  It's an "airport" but doesn't have security checkpoint, tickets or boarding passes.

The biggest event I've attended (by far) was a WWFM event which took place in the central train station in Zurich.  If I recall, there were about ~480 attendees.  I'm not sure why airports and train stations are treated the same.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, terratin said:

Well, lets be honest, having lived in a country where there were no caches near the airport and transit passengers would quite often get a voa to just host an event outside the airport (and usually during working hours), and nobody would show up because it was too far out of town I can understand this rule. I mean, it's clear that these events only served the purpose of scoring another 'country point' and not of meeting other cachers.

That's just one side of the medal... Here in Germany we even just had a MEGA event that took place on an airport field. And we also do have many of these events in the airports that definitely attract more than just the owner. I don't say you're wrong, ok? But prohibiting these in general can't be the right way in my eyes. It's too extreme!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

Don't forget that even with "airports" you don't have to think only JFK/ORD/LHR but smaller airport too. I think that an event in OST (IATA code) (ICAO=EBOS) would't even be a bad location. Easy to get to, plenty of parking, cheap food/drink. The airport restaurant is even used a lot by (mostly older) tourists/locals alike because of the democratic prices and panoramic runway view. EBKT is even smaller also has a panoramic viewing area and upstairs restaurant/café with outside viewing terrace. It's all open to the public.

What about having an event during an airshow?

Restricting events in secure areas is a no-brainer but any public accessible area should be no problem.

 

You're completely right regarding the open areas but the airshow (side) event anyways would not be allowed at all! No events as side events to already existing non geocaching events...

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Quite the contrary.  Your premise is erroneous.  Air travel by number of passengers in the U.S. far exceeds several countries combined (nearly double the second place contender, China):

141297e9-2f3c-451e-88db-c303dfa5c33c.jpg

So quite the contrary in this particular situation.  I believe that Groundspeak is perfectly justified in giving this portion of the Guidelines a more American emphasis.

Sorry, but in a worldwide perspective the US STILL is the minority ;) Yes, they might have the highest number pf passengers in a single country but if you add all the others in the world it still would just be a fraction of them! So if everybody would vote against that, US would lose!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

"If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache. Examples include concerts, fairs, sporting and scouting events." https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event

Ok, so in the case of the airshow it would be the question if this considered being either a fair or a sporting event. And btw: As "fair" has at least 2 different meanings... Would an event at our Oktoberfest work!?

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, monsterbox said:

That's just one side of the medal... Here in Germany we even just had a MEGA event that took place on an airport field. And we also do have many of these events in the airports that definitely attract more than just the owner. I don't say you're wrong, ok? But prohibiting these in general can't be the right way in my eyes. It's too extreme!

 

2 hours ago, monsterbox said:

You're completely right regarding the open areas but the airshow (side) event anyways would not be allowed at all! No events as side events to already existing non geocaching events...

I'd guess these are super-special/unique events, and could be up for exceptions to the rule provided proper permission and organization with the property owners. It would be a decision Groundspeak would need to be convinced of. But generally speaking, these events don't happen 'regularly', and so the guidelines wouldn't provide leeway for them.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

A number of posts have been hidden from view because they were just back and forth bickering between two discussion participants.  Under the Forum Guidelines (which were also revised recently), private conversations of interest to a small number of individuals should take place using the forum message feature, or the Geocaching.com email and message center features.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, terratin said:

Well, lets be honest, having lived in a country where there were no caches near the airport and transit passengers would quite often get a voa to just host an event outside the airport (and usually during working hours), and nobody would show up because it was too far out of town I can understand this rule. I mean, it's clear that these events only served the purpose of scoring another 'country point' and not of meeting other cachers.

You might be correct. But so what? So what if someone wants to score another state? Or another country? How does that affect anyone but the cacher in question? I don't get why some in this thread are bothered by the idea.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bflentje said:

You might be correct. But so what? So what if someone wants to score another state? Or another country? How does that affect anyone but the cacher in question? I don't get why some in this thread are bothered by the idea.

To take this a little further, what exactly is the idea behind the proximity rules for events? What exactly is the problem with two geocachers wanting to organise an event a few km away from each other? I don't understand the issue behind that.

Link to comment

At least they would have visited that country and not just have armchair logged one of the old virtuals :ph34r:

I'm planning to host an event during our upcoming holiday but I plan to find most of the available caches too. I don't expect a lot of attendees but hopefully there will be a few cachers there. At the event I hosted in Greenland we could all sit at 1 picnictable but it was fun to exchange stories.

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:
20 hours ago, Keystone said:

I see there's a desire from some discussion participants for 50 pages of guidelines that cover every possible eventuality, but I'm seeing that the majority of the feedback about the shorter, clearer guidelines is positive.  15 pages of guidelines that people read are better than 50 pages that don't get read.  As always, unclear cases and "what if?" questions can be resolved during the review process for the actual facts of a cache page, and can indeed be subject to regional interpretation.  For example, events one hour apart and 25 miles apart at two consecutive exits off of Interstate 70 in Kansas could be considered "stacked events."  Applying the same concepts of time and distance to two events in Berlin or Sydney or New York City would make no sense.

My desire is for simple consise guidelines which say what they mean.

If the guideline means "only in areas of transportation centres which are accessible to people without tickets" then that is what it should say.  If it says "not in or near transportation centres" then it should clarify what is meant by near.

Same here. I don't want longer, more verbose guidelines that cover every possible eventuality worldwide. The event location guidelines don't need to be longer; they just need to say what is really meant.

Is the concern really about events held in or near transportation centers? Because the responses in this thread from volunteer reviewers seem to indicate that the concern is really about events held in restricted areas accessible only to ticketed passengers. I've already suggested alternative phrasing that expresses that concern more accurately, and is actually shorter and more concise than the current phrasing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

At the event I hosted in Greenland we could all sit at 1 picnictable but it was fun to exchange stories.

Small events can be fun. I attended one at a local coffee shop where four of us sat around a single table. After exchanging stories and a few trackables, three of us left for work, and the event organizer left for the airport.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Touchstone said:

I would assume not, for the same reasons outlined previously. The usual test for this portion of the Guidelines is to ask the question, would the Oktoberfest festivities still take place in the absence of a geocaching event?

Sure it would :) But isn't the Oktoberfest something the Americans call a fair, too!? Or does "fair" this time just mean "trade show"?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

Same here. I don't want longer, more verbose guidelines that cover every possible eventuality worldwide. The event location guidelines don't need to be longer; they just need to say what is really meant.

Is the concern really about events held in or near transportation centers? Because the responses in this thread from volunteer reviewers seem to indicate that the concern is really about events held in restricted areas accessible only to ticketed passengers. I've already suggested alternative phrasing that expresses that concern more accurately, and is actually shorter and more concise than the current phrasing.

This

All we're asking for is that the guidelines match their intent. In its current form, the "transportation center" guideline doesn't communicate at all that it's referring to only the restricted portions of those transportation centers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, monsterbox said:

Sure it would :) But isn't the Oktoberfest something the Americans call a fair, too!? Or does "fair" this time just mean "trade show"?

Fair, festival, trade show, conference, convention, carnival, competition, cult gathering...

It doesn't matter what you call it. If you're attaching a Geocaching Event onto another event, then it most likely won't be published.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

As for the buried guideline, I think the rule could be clarified a bit. The hider is allowed to dig a hole to assist with the placement of a geocache (with the land owner's permission), however access to the geocache must not require digging on the part of the finder.

+1  Great clarification!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Quote

46 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

As for the buried guideline, I think the rule could be clarified a bit. The hider is allowed to dig a hole to assist with the placement of a geocache (with the land owner's permission), however access to the geocache must not require digging on the part of the finder.

+1    BINGO!  Now how hard was that?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
19 hours ago, on4bam said:

OK, forget the airshow example. It was just meant to show that even airports have large publicly accessible areas for which there's no reason it should be off limits for an event.

 

That is most certainly true,  if you're going allow exceptions you'll need some very clear language in the guideline which describe a clear line between where an event is allowed and where it isn't.  The suggestion of changing the guideline such that it prohibits events in locations only available to ticketed passengers is a good one. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...