Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, skramble said:

Sorry to see the new restriction that logs must be "enclosed within a container". I've seen some very creative caches that weren't. 

Creativity is not an exemption for complying with the guidelines.  

[+NLBokkie]

18 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Creativity is not an exemption for complying with the guidelines.  

That may be the case, but shouldn't be. I feel exactly the opposite: the guidelines (they are guidelines after all, and should not be interpreted as absolute "rules") should support and feed creativity. That's the only way to keep Geocaching interesting on the long run. Strip it of its creativity and the game will be dead soon.

Edited September 6, 2017 by NLBokkie
typo and rewording

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, The A-Team said:

15 hours ago, niraD said:

This new section seems ambiguous when it comes to marking trackables as missing:

"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must [...] Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache."

On the one hand, marking trackables missing is now something the cache owner "must" do. On the other hand, it only needs to be done "occasionally".

As a cache owner, I've preferred to wait a while after the first report that a trackable is missing, in case someone took the trackable recently, but hasn't logged their visit yet. But at what point does deferring to people who don't log caches immediately (e.g., anyone who uses field notes drafts) become a violation of the geocache hiding guidelines and their maintenance expectations?

I'll be interested to hear from those who have historically been opposed to being required to mark trackables as missing because they don't participate in the trackable side-game. The previous wording allowed them to ignore this function by effectively making it optional, but it now seems to be a requirement.

It will also be interesting to see what, if any, impact this has going forward.  The guidelines also indicate that a failure to comply with the maintenance responsibilities may result in a cache being disabled, archived or even that a CO may lose hiding privileges.  Will we see a case where a CO that did not occasionally mark trackables as missing lead to losing cache hiding privileges?  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

14 hours ago, Keystone said:

It's hard to explain to a homeowner or a park ranger that they can't hide their cache in the desired manner.

Oh I hadn't even thought of that direction... not just a cacher getting permission to place on private property, but the actual property owner hiding a cache on their own property. Why can't they do it as they please? Good point.

They can.  They just might not be able to list is on the GS site.

[+Team Microdot]

11 minutes ago, NLBokkie said:

17 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Creativity is not an exemption for complying with the guidelines.  

Oh really? Then that is where we don't agree. I feel exactly the opposite: the guidelines (they are guidelines, not "rules") should support and feed creativity. That's the only way to keep Geocaching interesting on the long run. Strip it of its creativity and the game will be dead soon.

Edited 8 minutes ago by NLBokkie

Of course the most creative individuals find ways to design caches which are both creative and within the guidelines

[+NLBokkie]

12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Of course the most creative individuals find ways to design caches which are both creative and within the guidelines

Agree! That would be the top solution

[+NYPaddleCacher]

13 hours ago, Keystone said:

13 hours ago, NLBokkie said:

Also, please make explicitly clear that small events at restaurants, cafes, ice cream parlours, diners, dönershops etc with free access and where nothing has to be ordered are just fine and not considered 'commercial'. As this is another constant issue we run into with reviewers.

The event guidelines are pretty detailed.  You can hold an event at a commercial location, and even mention its name, as stated.  Most issues arise when the event host uses the event page to promote the awesomeness of the chosen restaurant.  Repeating the menu, linking to the restaurant's website, going on about the selection of beers, and so forth, cross the line into promotion.  The details can be worked out with your local Community Volunteer Reviewer.

The event guidelines refers to the "no commercial content" guideline, which states.  "Cache pages perceived as commercial will not be published."   The key word there is "perceived". If in the languages, used on the cache page it creates a perception that it is promoting the business, the event might not be published.  The last sentence in Keystones post is important.  "worked out with the local Community Volunteer Reviewer" means, to me, that the the reviewer will the CO on the language of the listing such that it doesn't create a perception that it is promoting the business.  That could be as simple as changing.  "This place has the best burgers and beer selection in town." to "This place has a full bar and food menu."

[+on4bam]

OTOH, after all the commotion when I wrote about buried caches , they are now allowed. Things change and "sometimes" for the better.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

26 minutes ago, NLBokkie said:

32 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Creativity is not an exemption for complying with the guidelines.  

That may be the case, but shouldn't be. I feel exactly the opposite: the guidelines (they are guidelines after all, and should not be interpreted as absolute "rules") should support and feed creativity. That's the only way to keep Geocaching interesting on the long run. Strip it of its creativity and the game will be dead soon.

Try looking at it from the other direction.  If reviewers allow caches to be published even if they violate the guidelines if the cache is creative, it also means that reviewers would be able to deny a cache from being published if they've deemed that it's not creative enough.  I know at least one reviewer that has stated that if they had to tell a CO "you're baby is not cute enough"  they'd stop being a volunteer reviewer.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

OTOH, after all the commotion when I wrote about buried caches , they are now allowed. Things change and "sometimes" for the better.

 

Time will tell if this turns out to be better.  In your advocacy for buried caches I don't recall seeing that they should be allowed *if* explicit permission is granted by the land manager. It was more "there are lots of buried caches in Belgium that haven't caused an issue because thing are different in Belgium, therefore everyone should be able to bury caches."

[+on4bam]

38 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

In your advocacy for buried caches I don't recall seeing that they should be allowed *if* explicit permission is granted by the land manager.

Maybe you should dig deeper. First of all, buried caches are not a problem here, they are all over. Second, especially since the nature reserves needed additional permissions, I've stated several times that if the person responsible for allowing the cache says it's OK, guidelines should not prohibit placement.

If I find the time I'll look for a few of my earlier posts...

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

Quote

"....What if I would bury a cache in my own front yard (imaginary, as I don't have a front yard)? Are we supposted to blindly follow guidelines like lemmings without an own mind. It's not like a "guideline" is a law...."

"...It's not only "old" caches, even brand new caches can be buried. As I said, if the land owner has no problem with it the so be it. .."

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by on4bam

[+Team Microdot]

10 minutes ago, on4bam said:

20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

In your advocacy for buried caches I don't recall seeing that they should be allowed *if* explicit permission is granted by the land manager.

Maybe you should dig deeper.

That right there deserves a round of applause

[+narcissa]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The actual wording is:

Events cannot be held in or near transportation centers such as

• Airports
• Cruise ship ports
• Train stations

I don't see anything there to exclude events requiring some hiking to the location. Some of the most enjoyable events I've attended (and one I hosted) have involved a hike of a few kilometres to reach.

I note that the list isn't exhaustive so presumably events can't be near other transportation centres like ferry wharfs and bus interchanges. Is the intention to stop people using public transport to attend events? If so, why?

 

I suspect this is intended to prohibit these "hey I am on a cruise" and "hey I am at the airport for an hour" events where only the organizer ends up attending. Key word here being suspect.

If my suspicion is correct, then there could be a better way to address it in the guidelines.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, narcissa said:

I suspect this is intended to prohibit these "hey I am on a cruise" and "hey I am at the airport for an hour" events where only the organizer ends up attending. Key word here being suspect.

If my suspicion is correct, then there could be a better way to address it in the guidelines.

Any ideas on what a better way might look like?

[+arisoft]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Any ideas on what a better way might look like?

Don't organize event far from home.

• Vacation/holiday events are usually not published because they are difficult to organize in advance. It's best to organize events in your area so you can respond quickly to emerging needs. In rare circumstances a vacation event with an acceptable event plan might be published.

[+thebruce0]

The way I interpret the 'near' clause is more like the cases of not "inside" the building but still in the public access part of the transit property. Like, at the shelter of the bus/train terminal ("It's not inside so it's public and allowable!"), vs at the coffee shop on the corner next to the bus terminal building, or on the sidewalk next to the terminal building.  Maybe sort of like how LPCs in a parking lot would fall under "near the plaza" for physical caches; so near a transit hub would be more like essentially inside the hub of transit (despite it not being inside the physical building).

I dunno. Unless the wording gets updated to be clear about what "near" means, I'd say it's another 'use common sense' clause that gives the reviewer some leeway to judge whether the event location is appropriate/safe.

 

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

15 hours ago, Keystone said:

It's hard to explain to a homeowner or a park ranger that they can't hide their cache in the desired manner.

Oh I hadn't even thought of that direction... not just a cacher getting permission to place on private property, but the actual property owner hiding a cache on their own property. Why can't they do it as they please? Good point.

They can.  They just might not be able to list is on the GS site.

Of course, as can anyone. I'm just referring to Keystone's explanation that the wording allows them to more easily explain what a land owner can do with caches they hide on their own property.  Now they can let them bury it if they wish supported in writing (and they won't need to resort to listing it elsewhere, if they really really wanted to hide it that way)

[+J Grouchy]

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

[+on4bam]

10 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

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

Why?

 

[+J Grouchy]

4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Why?

 

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

[+on4bam]

14 minutes 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.  

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

[+arisoft]

30 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Why?

 

This may lead to digging more holes by frustrated geocachers.

[+hcy]

I see a contradiction here:

Quote

"With permission, geocachers may place caches ... on other planets ..."

"GPS usage is an essential element of hiding and seeking caches."

I don't think GPS is available on other planets.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

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

 

It almost looks like the policy itself is the same as before, but now in writing. But your concern is valid.

There are “buried” caches approved to this day, that are attached to posts with concrete bases, built for the cache. I'd bet there are also underground structures built to contain cache boxes. “With Permission” (OK, I know how that goes, but still). Stuff like that. I'd bet that Official Policy hasn't changed. Now there's a published Guideline to follow. I hope they can write this one nice & clear.

But one thing that could definitely change is the public's perception of Geocaching. Now when news articles, typically “suspicious package” or other less than flattering article says “Geocaching is when a box is buried...”, they can see it in black and white right there in Official Guidelines. Oh wait, “it's buried, but someone said you could”. Same difference, as far as the public perception goes.

And the other thing that changes is that now, yeah, new cachers for sure will feel justified to bring a shovel.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

38 minutes ago, on4bam said:

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

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.  

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

The way I interpret the 'near' clause is more like the cases of not "inside" the building but still in the public access part of the transit property. Like, at the shelter of the bus/train terminal ("It's not inside so it's public and allowable!"), vs at the coffee shop on the corner next to the bus terminal building, or on the sidewalk next to the terminal building.  Maybe sort of like how LPCs in a parking lot would fall under "near the plaza" for physical caches; so near a transit hub would be more like essentially inside the hub of transit (despite it not being inside the physical building).

I dunno. Unless the wording gets updated to be clear about what "near" means, I'd say it's another 'use common sense' clause that gives the reviewer some leeway to judge whether the event location is appropriate/safe.

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.

[+on4bam]

11 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

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."

Hmmm.. Regional difference? Each nature reserve has 1 (one) person responsible here.

[+thebruce0]

37 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I wouldn't obsess over the word "near."

There are some things I may obsess over, but "near" ain't one Were I to host more events, maybe. Hopefully others won't obsess over it either though, and common sense will reign. I completely grok your explanation.

 

51 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

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."

If one person gives permission and they are allowed to do so, then it should go on official record at the park for reference. If not, then GS shouldn't be held accountable for the park's mistake (at worst the one who gave permission should be if they don't have that right, or failed to note it in their official policy).  Basically, Groundspeak can only assume that the one speaking on behalf of the organization actually has the proper authority to grant said permission (and GS should retain said permission for reference). Beyond that it's out of their hands.  If things get bad, GS could still attempt to smooth things over to attempt to keep things cordial, but at some point one has to assume that the organization has things in order.  Get permission, verify authority, that's about all that can be done.

[+on4bam]

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If one person gives permission and they are allowed to do so, then it should go on official record at the park for reference. If not, then GS shouldn't be held accountable for the park's mistake (at worst the one who gave permission should be if they don't have that right, or failed to note it in their official policy).  Basically, Groundspeak can only assume that the one speaking on behalf of the organization actually has the proper authority to grant said permission (and GS should retain said permission for reference). Beyond that it's out of their hands.  If things get bad, GS could still attempt to smooth things over to attempt to keep things cordial, but at some point one has to assume that the organization has things in order.  Get permission, verify authority, that's about all that can be done.

At least here, most reserves have info boards with the name of the (1) person + phone number. No issues with "oh, I didn't know, it must have been my colleague". We recently did a multi where the CO stated "Thanks to xxxxx, mayor of xxxx for approving all coordinates". I saw statements like this many times before for nature reserves too.

 

[+terratin]

Looks good to me. I'm slightly worried about the addition to 'buried' as people tend to copy what they see. But lets just see how things work out.

[+goldpot]

2 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.

Edited September 6, 2017 by goldpot
Not typed anything yet!

[+goldpot]

So, events at transport hubs can take place so as long as ALL Geocachers can participate in the event itself? So, for example an event at a railway station's cafe that is opened to the public is ok? 

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

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.

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.

[+J Grouchy]

38 minutes ago, 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.

Yeah. There was a birdhouse gadget cache here that was bolted to a tree with some pretty hefty-looking hardware.  It got archived because of this a couple years ago, but when I was back that way several months ago, it was still there.  Yeah, the cache is archived, but the damage was done.

[+monsterbox]

21 hours ago, Keystone said:

These posts prove that it was worthwhile to add the clarifying language to the new guidelines.  There has been no change in policy, but the requirements are stated more clearly now.

Don't believe me?  Run a search in these forums on keyword "magnet" and for posts authored by me. You will see posts I've made from 2008 to earlier this year, all of which consistently state that a magnet by itself is not a geocache, but a magnet that encloses a separate logsheet does qualify as a geocache.

But do you consider this being a "container"? I already fear the translations

 

[+monsterbox]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I often meet up with friends in a restaurant across the road from the local railway station but no-one has ever claimed that's a security risk. Why should a geocaching event be any different? I can understand them not wanting events inside train stations (or airports or cruise ship ports) but near them? These vicinities often have lots of cafes and restaurants where they want people to gather and enjoy themselves.

I can't understand why an event shouldn't be possible there!? Here in Munich we do have a HUGE restaurant within the airport and many more smaller ones. Noone complains that people go there. So why shouldn't there be an event?

[+cerberus1]

7 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

But do you consider this being a "container"? I already fear the translations

Really?    How else can it be interpreted?

We've considered a magnet cache with a baggie behind it a container since we started.   

[+monsterbox]

11 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.

It also wasn't allowed to dig a hole for a post or such!

And by the way: You mention another issue: I don't really like the idea a health score drops just if someone is writing a DNF log. What about a D5 hide? Cache is there but many people just don't find it! Health score drops then? Bad idea!

[+monsterbox]

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Really?    How else can it be interpreted?

We've considered a magnet cache with a baggie behind it a container since we started.   

Sorry, but here we do have MANY without that bag. Just that magnet sheet and a waterproof sheet of paper attached to it. No bag -> No container

[+monsterbox]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

Don't organize event far from home.

• Vacation/holiday events are usually not published because they are difficult to organize in advance. It's best to organize events in your area so you can respond quickly to emerging needs. In rare circumstances a vacation event with an acceptable event plan might be published.

Just learned from a lackey yesterday that quite many HQ visitors place an event in the surrounding of the HQ when they plan to visit Seattle. She was perfectly fine with that as it allows her to meet people from abroad...

Edited September 6, 2017 by monsterbox

[+cerberus1]

5 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

Sorry, but here we do have MANY without that bag. Just that magnet sheet and a waterproof sheet of paper attached to it. No bag -> No container

We've seen that type as well.   Most archived, some added a bag or duct tape envelope to the back years ago to stay in play. 

[+monsterbox]

4 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.

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?

[+Blue_Ranger]

I'm glad to see the change to the "no holes" rule.  I've found some really awesome, very popular caches that technically violated that rule, because they were mounted on a post that had been installed just for that cache.  It would be awful to see an overzealous local reviewer decide that they all had to go.   

[+Team Microdot]

11 minutes ago, monsterbox said:

Just learned from a lackey yesterday that quite many HQ visitors place an event in the surrounding of the HQ when they plan to visit Seattle. She was perfectly fine with that as it allows here to meet people from abroad...

RHIP

[+barefootjeff]

5 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.

Okay, but I still don't get how railway stations fit into that. What part of near a train station isn't convenient and free for local geocachers to attend? In big city CBDs train stations are probably the most convenient places to reach as driving and parking is dreadful.

[+Touchstone]

37 minutes 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.  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.

I suspect that not much has changed for the majority of Events, and all this hand wringing will be for not.

[+The A-Team]

5 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.

If that's what the guideline in question is supposed to mean, then it needs to be rewritten. As it stands right now, there's no indication that this is the meaning that's intended. All it says is that you can't hold events in or near these facilities, with no explanation of the reasoning why. As we've already seen in this discussion, this vagueness can lead to many possible interpretations, with most of them not matching the spirit of the guideline. Personally, I thought it had something to do with security (ie. a suspicious gathering of people), but it seems that I was wrong.

Maybe it should read something like this:

Quote

Events cannot be held in restricted or secured areas of transportation centers such as...

As an aside, if there are really "goals" that give more clarity to the guidelines, why aren't those visible to all cachers? There are many guidelines whose "spirit" has always been unclear (is that toz I hear?), so anything that could give more clarity would be awesome.

[+The A-Team]

5 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.

I could see this being problematic for the reviewers.

"Sorry, your baby isn't cute convenient enough"?

[+Touchstone]

Boy, tough crowd here

"convenient" = accessible

Accessible: Able to be reached or entered. 

Examples:

On board cruise ship.....Not accessible

Cafe dockside....Accessible

Just as an aside, I have seen a couple of these "vacation" Events, where the Host didn't even appear for the Event (change of plans, delays?...who knows).   One Event was even adopted over to a local cacher, when it was obvious that the foreign host wasn't aware of the neighborhood and didn't want to deal with it.  If you can think it, it's probably been tried.

 

 

[+monsterbox]

39 minutes 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.

I suspect that not much has changed for the majority of Events, and all this hand wringing will be for not.

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!

 

[+niraD]

43 minutes 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.

Okay, I just reread the event section of the new guidelines. I still don't see how this is intended to apply only to food venues inside a secure area that is accessible only to ticketed passengers. If that's really the intent, then maybe it should be said in words like these:

Quote

Event location

Events cannot be held in secure areas of transportation centers (for example, airports, cruise ship ports, train stations) that are accessible only to ticketed passengers.