Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
Geocaching HQ

Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines

215 posts in this topic

On 9/6/2017 at 2:55 PM, Gill & Tony said:

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.

Guidelines are not black and white strict policy or law. Guidelines allow for some leniency and common sense. Does Groundspeak really need to spell it out for you and tell you not to hide a cache on the tarmac or in the belly of a 747? 

 

"Please do not hide caches near or around railroad crossings."

"Please do not hide caches 200 feet from a railroad crossing." 

Both say the same thing. 

Edited by SeattleWayne
0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Guidelines are not black and white strict policy or law. Guidelines allow for some leniency and common sense. Does Groundspeak really need to spell it out for you and tell you not to hide a cache on the tarmac or in the belly of a 747? 

 

"Please do not hide caches near or around railroad crossings."

"Please do not hide caches 200 feet from a railroad crossing." 

Both say the same thing. 

 

Except one statement tells me how far from the choo choo tracks.

1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
10 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

"Please do not hide caches near or around railroad crossings."

"Please do not hide caches 200 feet from a railroad crossing." 

Both say the same thing. 

Except one statement tells me how far from the choo choo tracks.

And, that's solely a matter of distance. Whereas the spirit of "near transit buildings" seems to cover "within ticket-holder restricted areas", which isn't the same as mere unspecified distance from something.

1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Guidelines are not black and white strict policy or law. Guidelines allow for some leniency and common sense. Does Groundspeak really need to spell it out for you and tell you not to hide a cache on the tarmac or in the belly of a 747?

It says "not in or near transportation centers."  Think Grand Central Station in Manhattan, off limits right? 1000's of tourists go there daily but a bunch of geocachers can't be there for an event?

0

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Except one statement tells me how far from the choo choo tracks.

I guess if that's what you require to hide a cache instead of using good judgment on distance then so be it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, on4bam said:

It says "not in or near transportation centers."  Think Grand Central Station in Manhattan, off limits right? 1000's of tourists go there daily but a bunch of geocachers can't be there for an event?

As long as you fill out this form (http://www.grandcentralterminal.com/info/eventplanning#hostyourevent) and it gets approved, I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

I guess if that's what you require to hide a cache instead of using good judgment on distance then so be it. 

We have speed limit signs too for those without perfect judgement. I think we also have a set rule locally to not place a geocache within 258 feet of a RR track. When I was actively placing geocaches I tried to know all the rules and guidelines that the volunteer reviewers here use. But, I do know how to follow black and white rank and order guidelines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

It would... "not in or near transportation centers". Now you see what the problem is with the wording of the guidelines? ;)

 

No, because they are guidelines. That's the point I'm trying to make, on4bam. If Grand Central says, "Yes, come have a Geocaching event here" why would Groundspeak say no? Just because of their "wording"? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

No, because they are guidelines. That's the point I'm trying to make, on4bam. If Grand Central says, "Yes, come have a Geocaching event here" why would Groundspeak say no? Just because of their "wording"? 

Because reviewers are supposed to follow the guidelines. Guideline is straightforward "not in or near transportation centers" so, no event. When I wrote here about buried caches I was almost lynched (well, not really B) ) for saying "why not if it's OK for the landowner?" The answer was always "because it's against the rules".

No now if the "landowner" says it's OK to organize an event the rules/guidelines no longer apply?

 

In practice I don't think there will be problems, events will be organized in/near "transportation centers" anyway I guess. It will however depend on the reviewer and how GS reacts if such an event is approved because, after all, it's still written in the guidelines.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

The guidelines need to be as clear as possible for two reasons. The first is the one we have spent a lot of time discussing, and that is how the reviewer interprets the guidelines when deciding whether or not to publish a cache. But the second one is how another cacher interprets the guidelines. What if that cacher places a NA on a cache because of their interpretation of the guidelines. In the latter case, the reviewer may have to take their time explaining why the cache meets the guidelines. To me, unclear guidelines imposes a double duty on the reviewer.

2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

It says "not in or near transportation centers."  Think Grand Central Station in Manhattan, off limits right? 1000's of tourists go there daily but a bunch of geocachers can't be there for an event?

As long as you fill out this form (http://www.grandcentralterminal.com/info/eventplanning#hostyourevent) and it gets approved, I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue. 

That would only provide permission to hold an event at Grand Central Station.  I would not, however, be a geocaching event if the GS guidelines does not allow listing events "in or near transportation centers".   I use many of the transportation centers in NYC fairly often.  I can assure you that there a *lot* of people in Port Authority (the primary bus terminal) that have no intention on getting on a bus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

The guidelines need to be as clear as possible for two reasons. The first is the one we have spent a lot of time discussing, and that is how the reviewer interprets the guidelines when deciding whether or not to publish a cache. But the second one is how another cacher interprets the guidelines. What if that cacher places a NA on a cache because of their interpretation of the guidelines. In the latter case, the reviewer may have to take their time explaining why the cache meets the guidelines. To me, unclear guidelines imposes a double duty on the reviewer.

+1

When we are discussing the guidelines, we usually forget 2 things:

1. That these are guidelines, not black and white rules.

2. That these guidelines have to be as clear as possible, not just for cachers and cache owners, but for the reviewers as well. Some of the latter are extremely vigilant in their own interpretation of the guidelines, using them as black and white rules. And with that behaviour they are effectively blocking new caches from being placed. The only way to counter that is if the guidelines are clear for all - in all other cases the reviewer automatically "wins" and the cache owner has no other means anymore than sending in an appeal. Since we can't fire reviewers and their appointment is not a democratic process, we have to make sure that they too understand what their function is, and that is not to skim each and every new cache to try to find a reason to keep it from being published. 

Yes, I'm very aware of the negative picture I paint here of some reviewers. And lucky they are not all like that. But I have a few very persistent and annoying examples from my area. 

Edited by NLBokkie
1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:
2 hours ago, on4bam said:

It would... "not in or near transportation centers". Now you see what the problem is with the wording of the guidelines? ;)

 

No, because they are guidelines. That's the point I'm trying to make, on4bam. If Grand Central says, "Yes, come have a Geocaching event here" why would Groundspeak say no? Just because of their "wording"? 

Actually, they are Guidelines *and* Requirements.  The language that Gill & Tony's suggests sets a clear boundary for where an event could be held and where GS would not allow it.   The use of "near" makes the guideline/requirement unnecessarily ambiguous.  If it read, "Events are only allowed in areas of transportation centres which are accessible to people without tickets." that would remove all ambiguity.   

0

Share this post


Link to post

With a guideline such as this, it's protecting the lowest common denominator. A cache may still get published as an exception even if it appears to break a guideline. But if a cache doesn't break a guideline and it doesn't get published, it can be appealed. Essentially, the reviewer has complete leeway to follow the guidelines to a T, but they have the right to make an exception if they feel it's feasible in this case.

However, defining "near" to explicitly explain the concern of ticket-restricted areas would be prudent, since that's no longer just a matter of distance (implied by 'near') but actually accessibility. Two very different things that fundamentally aren't regional/cultural.

1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

If Grand Central says, "Yes, come have a Geocaching event here" why would Groundspeak say no? Just because of their "wording"? 

This is basically the same as Groundspeak not allowing Earth Day service projects organized by the parks department to be listed as CITO Events on the geocaching.com site. Or the same as Groundspeak not allowing a meet-and-greet event to be listed less than 2 weeks before the actual event, even though the venue is perfectly happy to book the room.

There are more guidelines/requirements for listing an event on the geocaching.com site than getting permission from the venue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

I think we also have a set rule locally to not place a geocache within 258 feet of a RR track.

Wow, that seems a bit extreme--even for safety's sake.  Out of curiosity, do you know how they came up with that particular number?

I've never really understood the 150 ft. specified in the guidelines; every set of tracks within miles of me is almost perpetually populated by railfans with cameras, videos, or just hanging out on lawnchairs watching the trains go by and chatting.  RR personnel just exchange waves.

I would think it would make more sense to say, "within x feet of a railroad right of way", except that most people might not know what that is or how to find out how far it extends in any particular place.

So I can live with 150 ft. from tracks (even though I know of at least 3 caches right now that are closer than that). ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 I think we also have a set rule locally to not place a geocache within 258 feet of a RR track.

4 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:

Wow, that seems a bit extreme--even for safety's sake.  Out of curiosity, do you know how they came up with that particular number?

I've never really understood the 150 ft. specified in the guidelines; every set of tracks within miles of me is almost perpetually populated by railfans with cameras, videos, or just hanging out on lawnchairs watching the trains go by and chatting.  RR personnel just exchange waves.

I would think it would make more sense to say, "within x feet of a railroad right of way", except that most people might not know what that is or how to find out how far it extends in any particular place.

So I can live with 150 ft. from tracks (even though I know of at least 3 caches right now that are closer than that). ;)

There was a cache (along a beautiful waterfall) now archived, that the only way most knew of to access was along RR tracks.

When we went there, folks were standing along the tracks, taking pics and pretty-much partying, waving at the trains as they went by.

Rail workers stopped us on the way back,  said the area was off limits, realized we were headed back to a trail (and parking), and even told us to have a good day.  Mentioned the rail workers in our log.

That "Railfans" were  present in fact didn't mean that the area was fine to trespass...

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

That "Railfans" were  present in fact didn't mean that the area was fine to trespass...

Didn't mean to imply/suggest it was--sorry if you got that impression.

0

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:

Wow, that seems a bit extreme--even for safety's sake.  Out of curiosity, do you know how they came up with that particular number?

I've never really understood the 150 ft. specified in the guidelines; every set of tracks within miles of me is almost perpetually populated by railfans with cameras, videos, or just hanging out on lawnchairs watching the trains go by and chatting.  RR personnel just exchange waves.

I would think it would make more sense to say, "within x feet of a railroad right of way", except that most people might not know what that is or how to find out how far it extends in any particular place.

So I can live with 150 ft. from tracks (even though I know of at least 3 caches right now that are closer than that). ;)

 

Let's just go with 150 ft then, I like your numbers better. B) I may have confused a rails to trails easement or something. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

If, as Keystone suggested, the intent of this guideline is to stop transitory visitors from hosting an event as they pass through, the "near train stations" doesn't address that. Few international or even interstate visitors arrive here by train and even if they do, it's really only one station where they would (Central) so why place a restriction on the precincts around all the hundreds/thousands of other stations?

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Guidelines are not black and white strict policy or law. Guidelines allow for some leniency and common sense. Does Groundspeak really need to spell it out for you and tell you not to hide a cache on the tarmac or in the belly of a 747? 

The problem with a specific prohibition is that it implies permission for things not prohibited.  "No parking 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday" implies permission to park all day Saturday and Sunday, before 8am and after 6pm weekdays.  If Groundspeak did state such a regulation it would allow us to put caches on other parts of a 747 and on any part of any other aircraft.

So, no, I don't want Groundspeak to enact such a regulation.   

 

By far the simplest way to achieve what I suspect** that Groundspeak wants to achieve would be to say "Events may only be held in locations accessible to those members of the general public who have not purchased a ticket for entry".  This would eliminate anywhere a ticket is required - secure parts of transport hubs, theatres, cinemas,etc. It would also allow other parts of the guideline to restrict other areas as required.

 

** The absence of any comment from a lackey means we can only speculate.

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

If, as Keystone suggested, the intent of this guideline is to stop transitory visitors from hosting an event as they pass through, the "near train stations" doesn't address that. Few international or even interstate visitors arrive here by train and even if they do, it's really only one station where they would (Central) so why place a restriction on the precincts around all the hundreds/thousands of other stations?

Both Keystone and Touchstone have indicated that the intent of the guideline is to avoid events being held in the secured/restricted portions of the "transportation centers". The word "near" seems to be nothing but a red herring.

1

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Both Keystone and Touchstone have indicated that the intent of the guideline is to avoid events being held in the secured/restricted portions of the "transportation centers". The word "near" seems to be nothing but a red herring.

The problem is that, regardless of Keystone's and Touchstone's interpretation, the words "or near" were included in the guidelines and, therefore, we have to assume that the folk who wrote the guideline meant for that phrase to be included.  All it needs is for a lackey to drop by and make a definitive statement and all the speculation and interpretation will cease.

3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

The problem is that, regardless of Keystone's and Touchstone's interpretation, the words "or near" were included in the guidelines and, therefore, we have to assume that the folk who wrote the guideline meant for that phrase to be included.  All it needs is for a lackey to drop by and make a definitive statement and all the speculation and interpretation will cease.

Groundspeak has made a commendable effort recently to issue release notes on user impacting software changes. They usually follow up by having one or more lackeys monitor the thread to explain technical issues and note problems the changes have caused.  The items addressed by the lackey are limited to the technical discussion;  I can't remember one commenting on the color change to the green banner, the excessive white space, the font vs background contrast issues, and other such items.

This current thread is not in Release Notes because it is not a software change.  The rewriting of the guidelines is an administrative policy issue.  I would not expect a lackey to comment on decisions made by her/his boss.  While there may be staff members monitoring the discussion, they have not asked for our input and don't owe us any feedback.  I suspect they are more interested in hearing what actual difficulties the reviewers encounter with the changes than they are of hearing us discuss hypothetical issues.

2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If, as Keystone suggested, the intent of this guideline is to stop transitory visitors from hosting an event as they pass through, the "near train stations" doesn't address that. Few international or even interstate visitors arrive here by train and even if they do, it's really only one station where they would (Central) so why place a restriction on the precincts around all the hundreds/thousands of other stations?

In much of Europe train station events might serve that function though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

This current thread is not in Release Notes because it is not a software change.

However, the current thread was announced in the release notes forum with a link to this thread for discussion.  I have suggested a few times that there should be a Release Notes sub-forum for Guidelines or policy changes but it hasn't happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If, as Keystone suggested, the intent of this guideline is to stop visitors from hosting an event as they pass through

If that is the intent of the guideline, I don't really understand why that's something that should be prevented.  There have been many threads in the past about geocaching events on cruise ships and the answer has always been "you can't hold an event on the cruise ship....try to set up one at a port where the ship stops.  To me, a geoacaching event offers the opportunity for geocachers to meet and socialize with other geocachers.   Hosting an event at a location where traveling geocachers can meet with each other and with local geocachers,  seems to be much more in the spirit of event caches than cache machine events, or mega events where dozens or hundreds of geocaches are placed prior to the event so that many geocaches can be found.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

With a guideline such as this, it's protecting the lowest common denominator. A cache may still get published as an exception even if it appears to break a guideline. But if a cache doesn't break a guideline and it doesn't get published, it can be appealed. Essentially, the reviewer has complete leeway to follow the guidelines to a T, but they have the right to make an exception if they feel it's feasible in this case.

However, defining "near" to explicitly explain the concern of ticket-restricted areas would be prudent, since that's no longer just a matter of distance (implied by 'near') but actually accessibility. Two very different things that fundamentally aren't regional/cultural.

One can not break a guideline. A guideline is a basic rule of thumb or a suggestive direction. At best a recommendation. A guideline is not law. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/8/2017 at 11:05 AM, Manville Possum said:

We have speed limit signs too for those without perfect judgement. I think we also have a set rule locally to not place a geocache within 258 feet of a RR track. When I was actively placing geocaches I tried to know all the rules and guidelines that the volunteer reviewers here use. But, I do know how to follow black and white rank and order guidelines.

Curious.  I looked at the guidelines, and do not see anything about distance from railroad tracks,  Maybe I did not search well enough,  With modern techienology, they hide a lot of things what used to be easy to find. 

In states with older railroads, many have a 20' right-of-way on each side of the tracks.  My town has two sets of railroad tracks.  One is NJ Transit (the old Erie Lackawanna).  The other probably has a train come though once a month.  That one runs next to the river, which has a preserved space.  "Friends of the river".  Picnic table a short way in.  Enjoyed by patrons of the food bank nearby.  Very pretty spot.  But you have to walk right next to the railroad tracks to get there.  I had considered hiding a cache there, but it is a flood zone.  Would probably be forty feet from the tracks.  The railroad only has a twenty-foot right-of-way.  With the expansion westward, railroads were give a much larger right-of-way.  250 feet.  But that does not exist here.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Railroads are covered under the Restricted Areas section of the new Guidelines.  While the wording's new and better, there was no intention to change how the guidelines are applied to railroad property prior to the change.

The 150 foot distance from the track is based on conventions for certain (but not all) railroad rights of way in the USA.  Many reviewers use the 150 foot test as a safe 'rule of thumb' when there is no evidence that the right of way is narrower than that.  The legal principles governing railroad rights of way may vary by jurisdiction, which is why it makes sense to refer readers to their local section of the Regional Geocaching Policies wiki.  (That reminds me, I need to update my pages there!)

The railroad guideline is geared towards preventing trespassing issues, which railroads often enforce.  Several different geocachers have spent time in jail and/or paid large fines for trespassing on railroad property.  It is not a "safety" guideline.  That's why it makes sense to include railroads under the "Restricted Areas" section.

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/9/2017 at 0:48 AM, Gill & Tony said:

The problem with a specific prohibition is that it implies permission for things not prohibited.  "No parking 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday" implies permission to park all day Saturday and Sunday, before 8am and after 6pm weekdays.  If Groundspeak did state such a regulation it would allow us to put caches on other parts of a 747 and on any part of any other aircraft.

So, no, I don't want Groundspeak to enact such a regulation.   

 

By far the simplest way to achieve what I suspect** that Groundspeak wants to achieve would be to say "Events may only be held in locations accessible to those members of the general public who have not purchased a ticket for entry".  This would eliminate anywhere a ticket is required - secure parts of transport hubs, theatres, cinemas,etc. It would also allow other parts of the guideline to restrict other areas as required.

 

** The absence of any comment from a lackey means we can only speculate.

How about mega-events where you need a ticket?

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/6/2017 at 11:14 PM, 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.

My words too.

1

Share this post


Link to post

"The logbook must be physical, replaceable, easy to sign, and enclosed within a container."

Easy to sign... Does that mean that D5 traditionals are from now on forbidden? Does it mean that non-pencil logs are forbidden? I know some very creative alternative ways of logging with high favourited geocaches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Twentse Mug said:

"The logbook must be physical, replaceable, easy to sign, and enclosed within a container."

Easy to sign... Does that mean that D5 traditionals are from now on forbidden? Does it mean that non-pencil logs are forbidden? I know some very creative alternative ways of logging with high favourited geocaches.

I've looked at this a long while ago and was told that my idea would not fly unless I added a normal paper logbook for those that don't want to be fuzzed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Twentse Mug said:

How about mega-events where you need a ticket?

My wording applies to the event loaction.  If you want to hold a mega in a restricted area then no.  If you want to hold a mega in a public area and charge for admission to the event, that would be covered by a different regulation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:26 AM, Twentse Mug said:

"The logbook must be physical, replaceable, easy to sign, and enclosed within a container."

Easy to sign... Does that mean that D5 traditionals are from now on forbidden? Does it mean that non-pencil logs are forbidden? I know some very creative alternative ways of logging with high favourited geocaches.

I think they just mean that once you gain access to the log, it shouldn't be an additional challenge just to record your visit on it. I bet someone pushed the limits too far and required finders to chisel their name into a stone tablet or something, so they had to put this in the guidelines.

1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I think they just mean that once you gain access to the log, it shouldn't be an additional challenge just to record your visit on it. I bet someone pushed the limits too far and required finders to chisel their name into a stone tablet or something, so they had to put this in the guidelines.

We did once have one local clown place a logbook in a full can of golden syrup.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I think they just mean that once you gain access to the log, it shouldn't be an additional challenge just to record your visit on it. I bet someone pushed the limits too far and required finders to chisel their name into a stone tablet or something, so they had to put this in the guidelines.

Like this? BTW, I "signed" a rock and stamped metal letter by letter (tools provided) to log caches.

 

 

log.jpg

Edited by on4bam
0

Share this post


Link to post

Question on event stacking - the guidelines seem to be greyer than I remember. I am part of a committee who was organising what I hoped would be a Mega event and as part of the fun weekend we had organised some events and CITOs. As different cachers and reviewers have their own views - would be good to understand what is the definition for:

  • Events that are near the same time or location

Also does that mean all event types - including CITOs??

I had submitted my events before the new rule changes 2nd but on 11th sep told I'm now event stacking and based on the rules at the time I didn't think I was... so looking for some clarification to reassess our plans for next month.

 

Edited by Natalie247
0

Share this post


Link to post

Except for adding the concept of "events near transportation centers," the 2017 guideline changes did not alter the substance for whether event caches, Mega Events and CITO Events can be published. 

See this Help Center article for specific guidance about "side events" associated with a Mega Event.  That article has not changed recently.  There is specific guidance for CITO Events around a Mega Event.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Can I ask whether this, from the guidelines:

Quote

Availability

Caches must be available most of the week.

Is new or whether that was already there? It would seem to take out many really interesting locations that might, for lots of different reasons, have restricted opening - which seems a bit boring I suppose.

Do people (reviewers included!) think it means most of the week and most of the year, or are there circumstances where it could mean "most of the week when the area is open/when it is possible to physically find it"?

I have a really cool idea for a splendid cache, but it may fail dismally on this requirement...

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Can I ask whether this, from the guidelines:

Quote

Availability

Caches must be available most of the week.

Is new or whether that was already there? It would seem to take out many really interesting locations that might, for lots of different reasons, have restricted opening - which seems a bit boring I suppose.

Not as boring as a cache nobody ever gets to visit because of overly restrictive access requirements.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Not as boring as a cache nobody ever gets to visit because of overly restrictive access requirements.

Perhaps boring was the wrong word - "standardised" maybe? "One size fits all". "Restrictive"?

It strikes me that there's a difference between a great cache, in a really interesting location which can only be accessed for a limited time and something that's so ridiculously restrictive that it makes it impossible.

I'm thinking along the lines of Imber (about 50 days a year) or Tynham (most weekends plus some holiday blocks) rather than some of the old churches on the Stanford Training Area near Thetford which might only be accessible once or twice a year.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think the intent for availability has to do with hours of operation, versus problems with availability due to weather, nature, etc.

  • A cache in a park only open Tuesday, Thursday and Friday from noon until 3:00 PM would not be allowed because of it availability.
  • On the other hand, a cache only available 4 months of the year, because of weather would be allowed, if there are no other time restrictions.
  • I know of several caches that are only available at low tide. But, they are on public land open 24/7. These should not run afoul of the availability clause.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if the availability is controlled by humans, there could be a problem. If it is because of nature, it is OK.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Can I ask whether this, from the guidelines:

Quote

Availability

Caches must be available most of the week.

Is new or whether that was already there?

It looks new to me. I don't see anything about that in the latest version of the previous guidelines (courtesy of the wayback machine).

2 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Do people (reviewers included!) think it means most of the week and most of the year, or are there circumstances where it could mean "most of the week when the area is open/when it is possible to physically find it"?

I'm imagining an ammo can in the woods, in an open space that is open sunrise to sunset (which is not uncommon around here), and that doesn't allow bicycles, horses, vehicles, etc. The open space is available only half the week (on average, 12 hours a day). But the cache is a good three hours hike from the nearest trailhead, so it's only available 12-3-3=6 hours a day.

If "most of the week" counts only days the cache is available, then it's available 7 days a week. But if "most of the week" counts hours the cache is available, then it is available only 42 hours out of 168 hours.

But if 42 hours out of 168 hours is okay, what about a cache that is available only on Saturday and Sunday, but is available all 24 hours each of those days?

And what about... Yeah, lots of possible situations. I wonder what problem this is really trying to solve.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Do not bury geocaches, either partially or completely. You must not create a hole in the ground to place or find a geocache.


The only exception is if a property owner gives explicit permission, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page. See the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki for details in your region.

 

This guideline change could have been made clearer to illustrate what is being allowed and what isn't. This would be better:
 

Quote

Geocaches may not be buried, either partially or completely. Geocachers must never consider that they might need to uncover soil or dig to find a geocache.

If your geocache requires that you install a post, or some other implement that secures it to the ground, then you must have explicit permission from the property owner, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page. See the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki for details in your region.

 

 

I believe that is what HQ was going for with the guideline change.

Edited by fbingha
0

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, fbingha said:
Quote

Do not bury geocaches, either partially or completely. You must not create a hole in the ground to place or find a geocache.


The only exception is if a property owner gives explicit permission, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page. See the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki for details in your region.

 

This guideline change could have been made clearer to illustrate what is being allowed and what isn't. This would be better:
 

Quote

Geocaches may not be buried, either partially or completely. Geocachers must never consider that they might need to uncover soil or dig to find a geocache.

If your geocache requires that you install a post, or some other implement that secures it to the ground, then you must have explicit permission from the property owner, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page. See the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki for details in your region.

 

 

I believe that is what HQ was going for with the guideline change.

I agree, and it should be better worded.  Right now it appears that the guidelines permit someone to dig a hole, put a cache in it, and bury it if they have landowner permission.  I didn't think that was the intent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I agree, and it should be better worded.  Right now it appears that the guidelines permit someone to dig a hole, put a cache in it, and bury it if they have landowner permission.  I didn't think that was the intent.

Unfortunately, I think that was the intent. It would have been too easy to qualify the meaning with a very few words. Also it such a drastic change to one of the fundamental tenets that they must have carefully considered the wording. I hope they change it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 07/09/2017 at 3:35 AM, L0ne.R said:

Exactly. He sees a box on a post. Cool a box on a pole is allowed at this nature centre. He comes back digs, pores cement, sets the pole, attaches a mailbox. Then goes home to submit it. Gets turned down. Told to go get explicit permission. Doesn't want to. Doesn't go back to remove the mailbox (with the geocaching sign stencilled on the box) and pole encased in cement.

This is where it's like to see the ability to go through the cache submission and review process  before the cache is in place so that these things can be nipped in the bud early.

Then when CO is ready they can just hit a "go live" button.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14