yet another "should this be approved ?"

[+vds]

I'm seeing more complaints in the forums about seemingly arbitrary denials of caches. Let me add my complaint to the list.

 

Opinions appreciated..

 

I created a new micro at Fort Dent the other day that was just denied due to in my opinion a misinterpretation of the rules posted on the web site.

 

In the cache description, I included the following text - "Note - this cache will be removed at the end of October..." to let folks know it was a temporary cache with a finite (currently planned) end date, which is explicitly 'ok' according to the geocaching faq, which says:

 

"How long do caches exist? ...Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner..."

 

After 24+ hours waiting, I saw that the cache was rejected and archived by a local volunteer cache reviewer saying "The temporary nature of this cache prohibits it from being approved," and pointing to words in the guidelines on the hide+seek page saying:

 

"Geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner. However, when you report a cache on the web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move, or temporary caches (ex: Caches hidden for events) will not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

So, we have one rule saying ok which has ample precedent in this area, the annual cache at the Puyallup Fair, the annual holiday caches including this Halloween cache the 'rejecter' had last year, etc.

 

I guess I read the perceived rule as being intended to stop a flood of one-day only caches at an event, not a cache that is known at the time it's placed to not have a unlimited duration.

 

Thoughts ?

 

Should it be approved ?

 

[+Renegade Knight]

I would say the minimum amount of time for anything other than an event cache would be called 'seasonal'.

 

Thinking about parks that are open seasonally (usually 6 to 9 months) is where that came from.

 

Call it 6 months minimum barring a good reason for less. You are right though. Some clarification is in order. The old rule was the first one you quoted. The last rule you quoted was a newer guidline.

[Moun10Bike]

As an approver, I can tell you flat-out that temporary caches are not permitted for listing on this site. In this case, there does appear to be a conflict in the two documents, but I would say that the guidelines take precedence over the FAQ here.

 

For what it's worth, the admins are in the process of trying to consolidate and streamline the various guidelines found in different sources into one cohesive document.

 

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

As an approver, I can tell you flat-out that temporary caches are not permitted for listing on this site. In this case, there does appear to be a conflict in the two documents, but I would say that the guidelines take precedence over the FAQ here.

---

 

With all due respect to you guys volunteering your labor...

 

I'd like immediately request, no demand, that event caches be totally abolished, as they're 100% temporary.

 

Also, recall that 'all' caches are temporary. The quibble is 'how' temporary. You guys can't just make up the definitions and apply them arbitrarily.

 

Lame, but there's a lot of lame appearing around here it seems.

 

[+CachinCin]

I generally try to stay out of the forum critiquing, but I've been greatly disturbed by some of the new rules. It sure would be nice if the geocaching community were allowed to have input before rules were made. How about votes for paying members????

 

No temporary caches? Does that mean we expect all caches to last forever? It's okay if the cache disappears unexpectedly, but not okay if the owner makes plans for an exact date?

 

Pretty silly rule, considering that event caches are allowed. And it's rule that's very easy to get around. I, for one, would just not list that a cache would be temporary. I'd archive it when I thought it was time.

 

Cin

[Moun10Bike]

Caches aren't expected to be permanent, but they should be intended to have an extended life:

 

"Geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner. However, when you report a cache on the web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move, or temporary caches (ex: Caches hidden for events) will not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there."

 

Events are a separate category, as they are not physical caches. One reason temporary (and moving) caches was to prevent an area from getting torn up when someone goes looking after the cache is removed. This isn't a concern with an event.

 

NOTE: Edited because, re-reading my initial sentence, it sounded *really* snotty. Sorry, guys - just trying to fight too many fires at once.

 

 

[This message was edited by Moun10Bike on September 26, 2003 at 09:04 AM.]

[+hydee]

Temporary caches are not permitted as the guidelines state, this is not a new guideline it has been in place since early this year.

 

There is no precedent for placing caches, but I will address the two you referenced. Since both of them are appropriate caches.

 

The fair cache was approved under the condition that it be made available after the fair was over. The cache owners communicated with admins before submitting their cache to make sure it was acceptable.

 

The seasonal cache you brought up that was placed by the admins for Halloween last year was approved using the guidelines that were in place at the time.

 

If you have a cache that is an exception to the guidelines, I would suggest seeking permission first. Saves you the trouble and frustration if you cache is not approvable. And the admins are willing work with you to make changes to see your cache is approved.

 

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

[+vds]

Two documents, the guidelines and the faq, both explicitly PERMIT temporary caches.No document prohibits them.

 

The dis-approvers are not reading the words as they exist, they are reading the words as they apparently 'wish' they existed.

 

That is patently unfair, and patently LAME.

 

The word "finite" means not infinite. Finite is explicitly ok. The words "reasonable and extended" are not quantified at all, but the intent clearly is that the disclaimer is to prevent a bunch of one-day only caches being placed for a one-day only event.

 

This is not the case here, we're talking a seasonal cache (ok, my daughter's soccer season) that would be there for at least 5 weeks. That's "finite" and "reasonable and extended".

 

The dis-approvers and mother hens are running amok here. The pattern is getting worse and worse, and people (your customers) are getting more and more unhappy. And they have every right to be.

 

[+yumitori]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

 

With all due respect to you guys volunteering your labor...

 

I'd like immediately request, no demand, that event caches be totally abolished, as they're 100% temporary.

 

Also, recall that 'all' caches are temporary. The quibble is 'how' temporary. You guys can't just make up the definitions and apply them arbitrarily.

 

Lame, but there's a lot of lame appearing around here it seems.

 

---

 

Being insulting isn't going to help anyone's position. The Northwest forum is usually above such behavior.

 

Events are events, caches are caches. It's been stated in the past that if someone wishes to create temporary caches, they use the event process to do so. Set up an event, hide the cache, let the attendees find it, log the find on the event page.

 

In this specific instance, you might allow folks to log finds on the event for a longer than usual period. Discuss this with your local approver. Working together instead of butting heads is generally more successful.

 

From a more general view, you're suggesting a slippery slope - if your one month cache is approved, others will want ones that last only a week, a day, a few hours. I'm not being alarmist; I understand such submissions have been made in the past. So where's the line? Someone had to draw one, and we live with it or we list the cache on another website.

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

[Moun10Bike]

I agree with Yumitori: slinging insults isn't the best way to support your argument.

 

Vince, the "no temporary caches" guideline was put in place specifically because of a horde of ill-conceived seasonal caches related to Halloween and Christmas last year; while it mentions one-day caches related to events as an example, that is *not* the only circumstance it is trying to cover.

 

Surely there is a better way to solve this and work on getting your cache approved than belittling your fellow cachers and admins?

 

[+runhills]

Maybe off base without research but could the cache theme be slightly modified such that vds could operate during his desired time frame but then ownership could be transfered???

[+vds]

Calling a misinterpretation of the English language lame is not an insult to either the person, or their interpretation of English.

 

In fact, I took pains to preface my remarks to indicate that I appreciate the volunteers and their efforts.

 

Regardless, you are misreading the published rules/guidelines/faq which clearly say that temporary caches are explicitly permitted.

 

You're overstepping your bounds and extending, not interpreting, the rules. Getting huffy about perceived slights isn't going to change that.

 

Let me reiterate. I appreciate you guys...but you're making the wrong quite overzealous call here.

 

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by yumitori:

if your one month cache is approved, others will want ones that last only a week, a day, a few hours. I'm not being alarmist; I understand such submissions have been made in the past. So where's the line? Someone had to draw one, and we live with it or we list the cache on another website.

---

 

The line has 'never' been drawn. Temporary caches are explicitly permitted in both documents.

 

The words "reasonable and extended" are not defined in the documents. Jon and TMG are interpreting that phrase to mean:

- event caches are ok (even though they're not 'extended' as I use the word)

- any other specification of an end date is 'not' approved

 

That is not what the words in the guidelines and FAQ say. They are making policy, which is not their role. Their role is to interpret the existing policy.

 

All I had to do was 'not' mention that I had an end-date in mind and the cache would have been instantly approved. But I tried to be nice and tell people when that date would likely be, so interested cachers would get there in time. And that makes the cache somehow less 'worthy' or 'approvable'.

 

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that. That's lame by every definition of the word.

 

[Moun10Bike]

I'm sorry, Vince, but you are wrong; we are *not* making policy. As admins who discuss the guidelines everyday, we know that Jeremy does not want temporary caches of the sort that yours is set up to be to be listed on Geocaching.com. You can take issue with the way the guidelines are worded (and hopefully you will work constructively toward getting that wording improved if you disagree with it), but you are way off base to suggest that we have the guidelines wrong or are acting in some rogue fashion.

 

Yes, it is true that it would be easy to bypass the guidelines by never mentioning your intentions to remove the cache after a set time, just as it would be easy to bypass several of the other guidelines. However, we prefer to believe that hiders are acting in a trustworthy manner and have agreed to abide by the guidelines for posting a cache on this site.

 

[+vds]

Jon:

 

We obviously disagree. You have the admin privs, I lose. Believe me, I understand. However, permit me to summarize my position, and why I'm livid at what's going on around here.

 

1. As a paying customer of geocaching.com I couldn't care less what Jeremy thinks. However, I positively care what the acceptable use guidelines I need to follow are, as I wish to participate in a 'trustworthy manner' as you used the term.

 

2. So I have followed the guidelines re: acceptable use of the site, and acceptable caching practices to have caches listed 'on' the site. Those written guidelines say I'm right, and you+TMG are wrong. Temporary caches are explicitly 'permitted' in both documents.

 

3. My belief is that you guys aren't enforcing the published guidelines, you're enforcing guidelines that aren't published. I can't read your minds. You say "he said" one thing. His written words say the opposite. How can I possibly follow other than the written words ?

 

So what can I do, as a paying customer ?

 

Easy. Vote with my feet, and vote with my wallet.

 

I see no choice other than to not participate further, nor to subsidize geocaching.com, or recommend that anybody else participate as a paying customer. Congratulations, you lost Jeremy another paying customer.

 

I will not be renewing my membership, I will not recommend others join, I will not shop at geocaching.com, or any of its partner sites, as that would be subsidizing an organization that has lost touch with its users.

 

Let me reiterate.

 

Policies that are known to 'the privileged few' and directly conflict with the written, well known and understood wording on the documents the same people point the 'unwashed masses' to, aren't something I can deal with.

 

It appears the secret rule is that temporary caches are unapproved. Far be it from me to violate the rules, even if what's published says the opposite. I wouldn't also want to wind up on some double secret probation list or the like.

 

Accordingly, I have no choice, as a ethical person who operates in a 'trustworthy manner' as you say, other than to immediately remove and disable ALL my caches, and never, ever, hide another cache that will be listed on geocaching.com.

 

Given your guidelines, I see no chance to operate in such a 'trustworthy manner' with unwritten guidelines that prohibit all caches other than event caches, as everything else is inherently temporary by definition.

 

I can find events quite nicely without geocaching.com, thank you very much.

 

Congratulations, you guys infuriated another person and lost another participant/customer. I'm outta here.

 

 

Soon to be 'no longer' a:

 

[+travisl]

I feel Vince's frustration here. I, too, would have figured that a cache that existed for five weeks would be OK, specifically because I remembered the word 'temporary' in the FAQ as I read the archived cache notices.

 

My question is very, very, very simple:

 

How long, in days, is a "finite ... realistic and extended period of time"?

 

WWJD? JW RTFM.

[umc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

 

Congratulations, you guys infuriated another person and lost another participant/customer. I'm outta here.

---

 

Thank goodness.

 

We don't need anti cachers like your kind around here anyway.

 

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

 

So what can I do, as a paying customer ?

 

Easy. Vote with my feet, and vote with my wallet.

---

 

Or perhaps you could have contacted Team Misguided about the archival and asked what you could do to get the cache approved. Perhaps with a friendly note and a good - or simply personal - reason, you could have been granted an exception.

 

Archival of a cache does not sounds its death knell. The admins are very willing and able to grant exceptions for thoughtful caches that fit the spirit of the guidelines. However, you shouldn't be surprised if their reception of your ideas is cool when you take the course of action that you did. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

 

I'm sorry that this situation had so moved you to anger, but with different choices on your part the outcome could have been much different.

 

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by travisl:

 

My question is very, very, very simple:

 

How long, in days, is a "finite ... realistic and extended period of time"?

---

 

First, a question for you: are you saying that you prefer rules to guidelines?

 

[+mattyhayes]

> How long, in days, is a "finite ... realistic and extended period of time"?

 

I'm new to geocaching (pbut a premium member since I started), so I've only been reading, reading, reading on the forums. I've been thinking about creating a cache, so these threads are particularly of interest to me. I volunteer on several professional committees, so I can understand the workload of the admins. However, Vince seemed to clearly define a finite, realistic period of time in this case (daughter's soccer season - 5 weeks). That's not temporary or arbitrary, and the time is extended for a duration of time (has anyone ever spent 5 weeks of driving their children to soccer practice and games...it seems like a lifetime).

 

Certainly Vince is a little passionate (as well as others), but I am surprised by the callous application of the rules in this case. If the rules are written to provide alternate interpretations, then they are also written to provide opportunities to explore the boundaries of interpretation. This interpretation WILL certainly lead to new caches being placed without full disclosure, even when there is no grey area in the rules. I am equally surprised that, as this is an organization of individuals who have donated time and money, that an admin would temper their interpretation of the rules with "we know that Jeremy does not want temporary caches of the sort that yours is set up to be." I hope that the courts of this land don't turn to their state or federal leader for an interpretation.

 

> Geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner.

 

I understand the decision to ban temporary caches and the work involved in posting them and removing them from the system. This seems to be an opportunity to improve the rules of geocaching rather than add another red check mark and lose another paying member.

 

M.

[+Ish-n-Isha]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

First, a question for you: are you saying that you prefer rules to guidelines?

 

http://geocachingwa.org

 

I prefer guidelines myself but, I also believe that ambiguity can be the father of dissension.

 

Rules may not be perfect, but they have a way of being clear. Anything cut and dried, so to speak, minimizes Admin intervention and interpitation. It would seem one way to ease their workload.

 

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

[+travisl]

quote:

---

are you saying that you prefer rules to guidelines?

---

 

Yes. I definitely prefer rules, but would like them to have an appropriate, clear, defined exception process as well, in case of those odd situations that would invariably arise.

 

For example, "A cache must be expected to last for at least six months" would be a good rule. Exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis, although I can't come up with any examples that would work. Even caches that are in very urban areas (''Do you want fries with that'', for example), while expected to be taken by geomuggles quickly, would work if the cache owner professed a plan to replace it quickly and repeatedly over the six month period.

 

The "no physical caches in National Parks" rule has worked well. It's a rule, not a guideline, right?

 

To echo what Ish-n-Isha say, well-worded rules are good things when you want clarity, particularly if they're enforced consistently.

 

WWJD? JW RTFM.

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

However, you shouldn't be surprised if their reception of your ideas is cool when you take the course of action that you did. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

 

I'm sorry that this situation had so moved you to anger, but with different choices on your part the outcome could have been much different.

---

 

Jon, with all due respect, hogwash.

 

I did send a note to TMG explaining my position, I got no response (perhaps they're on the road to the SCM or something). So I posted my position asking for people's opinions.

 

The hope was that there would be people supporting my position, and you guys would quietly reverse the mis-interpretation.

 

But nope, that didn't happen. So it goes.

 

I threw no rocks, other than use of the word 'lame', which is entirely appropriate in my opinion. I can think of a few other words, but I'm trying to keep it family appropriate.

 

Bottom line, I didn't want an exception. I also didn't NEED an exception. That cache was within the published guidelines, and it was denied for absolutely no good reason.

 

You guys are over controlling something that doesn't need controlling, in direct conflict with the published guidelines you're supposed to be using as 'your' guidelines.

 

And there were no flies other than telling you both that you're both wrong. If that's enough to upset people in politically correct Seattle, then that's just plain tough.

[+Criminal]

Do you want my opinion? Well, here it is anyway. I think it centers around intent. If the intent is for the cache to be up for only a short period of time, it doesn’t get approved. I would love for all my caches to be out there for as long as I live, which I would like to do forever. Realistically, it ain’t gwine t’happen. I am completely flabbergasted at the tone of this thread. We’re all friends her right? I have great respect for all concerned but VDS, you’re not being reasonable here. If you’re trying to get a cache approved, it doesn’t happen in the forums. Present your best case to the approver, move it up the chain, and live with the results. Disabling all your caches (especially since I haven’t gotten to them yet) is not the way to go. I don’t know anything about the cache you are trying to get approved, but I think the reason the policy is as it is came about from a load of crapass temp caches flooding the site every major holiday. “Come see my holiday lights!” Please, I can find them if I want to see them, you don’t have to make a geocache out of it.

 

I think you are aware of this too. You did, after all, only disable the caches, not archive them. Come on, let’s all step back and take a few deep breaths. Or get yourself a cool cold medicine cocktail like I’m on. Wooooooo! What day is it?

 

EDIT: Type too dadgum slow, NO MORE RULES!

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+runhills]

Methinks that in every society there are those that wish harmony for the benefit of the majority. And there are others that wish to exploit others for personal gains. Personally I wonder if this cache was being set for the majority or just a special group.

 

In any case, the geocaching administrators have volunteered to bring a bit of balance and have been selected because of their experience and thus are chartered to make decisions that are best for the majority. Are we being a bit harsh in attacking them because individual desires are not met

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

(''Do you want fries with that'', for example), while expected to be taken by geomuggles quickly, would work if the cache owner professed a plan to replace it quickly and repeatedly over the six month period.

---

 

It was never expected to be taken, and wouldn't have been if not for two facts, one, people don't know how to put it back they way they found it, and B., they came and painted the poles. As soon as the paint dries on the new contianer it'll be back up.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+romulusnr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

I created a new micro at Fort Dent the other day that was just denied due to in my opinion a misinterpretation of the rules posted on the web site.

 

In the cache description, I included the following text - _"Note - this cache will be removed at the end of October..."_ to let folks know it was a temporary cache with a finite (currently planned) end date,

---

 

As applied to your cache, this rule would also invalidate any cache placed in a national forest or state park which abides by any of the cache registration agreements which are becoming common as state and federal agencies become aware of geocaching in their turf.

 

Case in point: Superior National Forest Geocache Registration Form, which explicitly requires the cache to be removed after one year.

 

Shame on the site maintainers and/or approvers for letting things become completely arbitrary and being incapable of clearly drawing out their questionable and conflicting rules, and applying them evenly and consistently.

 

It is irresponsible of them to strictly enforce rules that they have not managed to finalize.

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Criminal:

If you’re trying to get a cache approved, it doesn’t happen in the forums

---

 

Thanks for your 2-cents, really.

 

Actually, that 'was' the original intent, I was hoping to hear either way what people thought, and to refer to the thread when I talked 'again' with TMG or Jon, but I've long since given up thinking that's possible and know there's no way that'll happen.

 

Incidentally, the caches were moved to disabled so they show up that way for a bit, they will indeed be archived after I recover them this weekend.

 

But anyway, I'm not trying to raise a ruckus for one silly micro. Who cares.

 

There's a bigger point I was originally trying to make....what the heck 'are' the bounds and limits on what's ok and what's not around here ? How the heck do you know, if you can't believe the literal words somebody worked hard to write down on 'two' documents on the official site ? That to me is the biggest 'culture' problem on geocaching.com right now. The admins aren't walking the walk.

 

Two published documents say temporary caches are ok. If the readers can't believe that's indeed true, what value are those documents, and 'are' there any rules other than today's generosity of the admin du-jour ? How does joe-cacher know where the bounds are and what's ok or not ?

 

The words saying permanent-or-temporary are ok are quite clear. If they were not ok, the words would explicitly say 'that'. They don't.

 

Geez, I wouldn't have placed the doggone thing, nor spent the money to buy the pieces or the time to paint and assemble it, if the guidelines hadn't explicitly ok'd temporary caches.

 

The problem with geocaching.com as it exists now is all these flip-flops with no discussion, no communication, and it appears not enough thought.

 

Hey, I like Jon and the TMG a lot but we get to disagree...and we do in this issue for certain. My opinion is that the moderators/approvers should not be taking actions contrary to the published rules. If they do, it's total chaos, which is what's been happening on the site for months, more and more, from what I've been reading.

 

Float a trial balloon suggesting changing or better defining the rules, ask people for input, do whatever you decide to do, and communicate what you're doing/changing, but don't make them up on the fly totally contrary to the published rules that are 'still' present online. That's craziness. We all live with too much craziness.

 

In my opinion, of course.

 

And thanks for yours (everybody).

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by runhills:

Methinks that in every society there are those that wish harmony for the benefit of the majority. And there are others that wish to exploit others for personal gains. Personally I wonder if this cache was being set for the majority or just a special group.

---

 

Offense taken. Me thinks some people also think there are black helicopters hovering overhead at night too.

 

It's just a steenkin' micro in a silly park, man. Nothing special, there are hundreds of them around here. I just thought folks would like to see this park too and thought the hiding mechanism was something folks hadn't seen before.

 

quote:

---

In any case, the geocaching administrators have volunteered to bring a bit of balance and have been selected because of their experience and thus are chartered to make decisions that are best for the majority. Are we being a bit harsh in attacking them because individual desires are not met

---

 

I am objecting to their in my opinion mis-interpretation and mis-application of the published rules. No more, no less.

 

Just because they volunteered and were accepted doesn't mean they got this one right.

[+hydee]

The approvers in this case interpreted and applied the published guideline as it was intended by geocaching.com. I can see where geocachers may have misunderstood the intention behind the 'cache permanence' guideline and I will make it a high priority to update that guideline to add clarification.

 

The idea behind having guidelines is to allow flexibility and creativity that 'rules' do not allow. This game is constantly changing and the guidelines are changed according to the demands of the sport.

 

To clear up the quote from the FAQ, here is the line vds quoted:

 

"How long do caches exist? ...Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner..."

 

Reading this quote, the suggestion is that the choice of temporary or permanent is up to the cache owner. This is not the case. Here is the full quote from the FAQ:

 

"How long do caches exist?

 

It all depends on the location of the cache and its impact on the environment and the surrounding areas. Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner to periodically inspect the cache and the area to ensure that impact is minimal, if not nonexistent. When you find a cache, it's always a good idea to let the cache owner know the condition as well."

 

vds - calling the admins 'dis-approvers' and your statement that the 'dis-approvers and mother hens are running amok' is insulting.

 

They are cache approvers. They approach every submission with the intent of approving the cache if it meets guidelines.

 

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

[Moun10Bike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

 

Actually, that 'was' the original intent, I was hoping to hear either way what people thought, and to refer to the thread when I talked 'again' with TMG or Jon, but I've long since given up thinking that's possible and know there's no way that'll happen.

---

 

Vince, I still hold out hope that we can put this behind us and approve your cache in a form that is satisfactory to both you and Geocaching.com.

 

[+mattyhayes]

quote:

---

Originally posted by hydee:

 

The idea behind having guidelines is to allow flexibility and creativity that 'rules' do not allow...

 

"How long do caches exist? ...Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner..."

 

Reading this quote, the suggestion is that the choice of temporary or permanent is up to the cache owner. This is not the case. Here is the full quote from the FAQ:

 

"How long do caches exist?

 

It all depends on the location of the cache and its impact on the environment and the surrounding areas. Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner to periodically inspect the cache and the area to ensure that impact is minimal, if not nonexistent. When you find a cache, it's always a good idea to let the cache owner know the condition as well."

 

---

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but as a newbie who is really getting into this sport, let's please make the distinction real clear when you are quoting the FAQ or the Requirements/Guidelines to support your argument; they are two very different things. A FAQ is useful to know, the Requirements/Guidelines are what you are supposed to read when you decide to place a cache, and that is what decisions should be based on by the Admins. The FAQ is accurately quoted above my Hydee. Yet the FAQ makes no (big NO) statement on whether a temporary cache is permitted, just that caches can be permanent or temporary. The FAQ cannot be used as a basis for either side in this argument.

 

However, the Requirement/Guidelines do state what VDS is supporting:

 

As the Frequently Asked Questions indicate, geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner.

 

However, when you report a cache on the web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move, or temporary caches (ex: Caches hidden for events) will not be approved.

 

Again, I'm a newbie, so I'm not as familiar with the historical changes (or reasons for the changes) to the requirements, but 'temporary' is very vague here, and the example given (ex: Caches hidden for events) does not fit VDS's use. He has a clearly defined timeline, long enough for regional visitors to find the location. Is a public forum necessary for this? Absolutely if application of the requirements is unclear. We're not leeches using some free service, we're paying members that care about clarity and consistency.

 

M.

 

[This message was edited by mattyhayes on September 26, 2003 at 07:04 PM.]

[+Criminal]

OK, one more question from me. Why can't this cache be permanent? Even if the season is over, couldn't you just keep a cache out there? I mean, even if it has to move a few feet after the season is over, wouldn't that solve the whole problem?

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+hydee]

I was not using the FAQ to support anything, I was making sure that the FAQ was quoted fully so that it was not misinterpreted.

 

My post was made to clear up any misinterpretation of the guidelines. To show that the cache approver that reviewed this listing and the cache approver that has supported the decision were not acting as 'approvers running amok'. Their decisions were based on Groundspeak's guidelines for posting a cache on the geocaching.com site. Two volunteer approvers and a Groundspeak employee supporting the same decision seems pretty consistent.

 

I have also agreed to clarify the document to reduce confusion. We are quickly approaching the 'holiday cache' season and I would like to update the guidelines before there are 5,000 seasonal five week caches submitted in the next couple of months.

 

Geocaching.com's guidelines are applied to each cache in the same manner. The status of membership is not taken into consideration when a cache is reviewed. If a cache fits as an exception to the guideline the exception will be made regardless of membership status.

 

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

[+mattyhayes]

quote:

---

Originally posted by hydee:

I was not using the FAQ to support anything, I was making sure that the FAQ was quoted fully so that it was not misinterpreted.

 

...Two volunteer approvers and a Groundspeak employee supporting the same decision seems pretty consistent.

 

...I have also agreed to clarify the document to reduce confusion.

 

Geocaching.com's guidelines are applied to each cache in the same manner. The status of membership is not taken into consideration when a cache is reviewed.

---

 

I was not trying to extend the debate, just clarify. I agree that you corrected VDS's statement in the FAQ. I also understand the Groundspeak and the Admins are in unison on their decision, but the real issue is that the guidelines are not as clear. I'm happy to hear that it will be clarified before it becomes more of a problem and confusion continues.

 

However, I think when it comes to admins and Groundspeak in relaying the decision on potentially new caches (as with any business/enterprise), they might want to at least take some additional effort to explain to a voluntary paying member (so as not to lose members) that the guidelines/requirements are not clear in this area. If the guidelines are not clear, do not use them as the sole basis for denying a new cache. Instead, state that the guidelines are in the process of being updated to reflect the current state of the sport, and offer suggestions such as those given by Criminal to see if the cache could be placed permanently. That is really what VDS's complaint was in the first place, that the rules given to members/nonmembers are not clear and need updating.

 

The 9th Circuit was in unison, but the basis for their decision was overturned. I (and my family) are really starting to get into this sport, so let's not get it bogged down in this sort of situation. Maybe it's just case where instead of calling it arbitrary denial of a cache, it needs to be called suggested changes for approval.

 

M.

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

If the guidelines are not clear, do not use them as the sole basis for denying a new cache. Instead, state that the guidelines are in the process of being updated to reflect the current state of the sport, and offer suggestions such as those given by Criminal to see if the cache could be placed permanently. That is really what VDS's complaint was in the first place, that the rules given to members/nonmembers are not clear and need updating.

---

 

OK, first, separate the two concepts of “guidelines” and “rules”. There is much fudge space in a guideline, and none in a rule. That may be why Travis wants a rule, he deals with law and law needs to be more black and white.

 

Geocaching needs to be governed by guidelines applied with common sense. With strict rules, the creativity would be destroyed. You see, it’s the creativity that makes the game what it is. If we all have to make our caches according to definite tenet, all caches will be very much alike. Woo, that’s fun!

 

The game is still in evolution, what we have today is nothing like what it was two years ago, and nothing like what we’ll see in a few years. To hamstring the players with stringent rules will bring the end to geocaching. We see this time and time again, dimwits scream for a rule to forbid ammo cans - others demand the geocaching staff require permission for each and every cache. Somebody always comes along and starts trying to “improve” the game, or fix something that isn’t broken. Usually it’s based on someone’s belief that another may not have the same intelligence level they believe they possess. “We better do this in case JoeCacher tries to do that!”

 

Come on people! We are all adults here! Of course no cache in permanent! But when I read that I hear Jeremy saying, “don’t make your cache container out of concrete and anchor it seventy feet into the ground”, not, “all caches should be considered temporary”. If the intent is that the cache will go away, or is a closed ended cache, it will not be approved. You have three ways of dealing with that, you can figure out how to make it last longer, you can lie, or you can take your ball and go home. I like the first option best.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[Team Misguided]

I apologize for not speaking up on this sooner. Some very interesting points of view have been brought up. We are working on revising the guidelines so that they are up to date.

 

As far as the disussion of this specific cache, I prefer to discuss that directly with vds. I have not had time to reply to his email, but will correct that as soon as I can.

 

TMS

 

Errand boy for the chick that works for the frog

__________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

[+vds]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Misguided:

As far as the disussion of this specific cache, I prefer to discuss that directly with vds. I have not had time to reply to his email, but will correct that as soon as I can.

---

 

Thanks for the e-mail, which I did receive, but at this point I'll have to decline discussing it further. My position is pretty clear. You have words on the web site saying it's ok, it should have been approved. I'm not interested in an exception. The words on your web page say no exception is needed.

 

What I see is the issue of time is another attempt to over-control the 'sport', but I don't quite understand why you'd even bother. Who 'cares' if there are 100 lame Christmas caches. I thought the idea was to 'promote' the hobby, not 'constrain' the hobby. I thought the basic concept was hide something physical, make'em find it by GPS, let the community define its worth (or lameness), meet some new people, go to some new places. But I suppose that's another religious war so I'll stop there.

 

Anyway, these problems will keep coming up as long as you're mistaking the definitions of guidelines and rules.

 

Guidelines point you in the right direction and give you a general clue (ie, please be careful of the environment). Rules should be hard, unambiguous, impossible to misinterpret lines in the sand (ie, no caches within 0.1 miles of another).

 

The issue of minimum time duration requires a rule. Rules aren't all bad. Remove the ambiguity.

 

I don't care if the minimum duration is a day, a week, 5 weeks, 6 months, whatever. Just draw the darn line in the sand...and don't apply the new rule unless your documentation has been updated and the rule change has been announced. Ideally, ask first and get the community's thoughts where that line is so they feel included, rather than dictated to.

 

And lastly, I've been here 18 months and I see a growing tendency toward over-control that I don't understand. Let it go. Let the people take the hobby where it'll go and where they want it to go.

 

Things already have pretty much converged on a few basic issues:

- no travelling/locationless caches

- minimal virtuals except when legal/safety prevent it,

- nothing closer than 0.1 miles from another

- permission required when on private property

- nothing in certain specified restricted areas

 

That's about it. That's ok.

 

Just add "caches must be present and supported for a minimum of XXX days" to that list, and rewrite your docs accordingly before you apply the new rule.

[+Logscaler and Red]

vds.

 

So far, I think your last summation was the best so far.

 

Both the guidelines and rules should be defined better.

 

But I also understand that this game is still real fluid and things - rules and guidelines - are and will always be in a state of flux. Everything will be fine for a while then someone will come up with a whole new idea which has not been accounted for.

 

But I also have to ask why your cache could not stay full time. Maybe I missed that part somewhere along the line.

 

logscaler.

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

[+Seth!]

Fascinating. In the interest of not making this thread get much longer, I'll just say that I agree with 92% of what Criminal wrote.

 

I'll leave it to you to figure out which ninety-two percent.

 

[+Ajetpilot]

Facts:

 

* 50% of all voters are below average.

 

* 50% of all Senators/Representatives are below average.

 

* 50% of all geocachers are below average.

 

* 50% of all Approvers/Disapprovers are below average.

 

By having "guidlines" vice "rules", you leave lots of decisions to lots of below average folks.

 

If you are an approver reading this, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth,

And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings..."

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth!:

Fascinating. In the interest of not making this thread get much longer, I'll just say that I agree with 92% of what Criminal wrote.

 

I'll leave it to you to figure out which ninety-two percent.

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org

 

My vote for the other 8%

quote:

---

Woo, that’s fun!

---

 

Seth!! Where have you been! Haven't heard much from you lately!

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+romulusnr]

There's an interesting propensity here to tell the cache hider that they should play along with the decisions of approvers in the application of vague and admittedly unfinished guidelines. The motivation seems to be that one does not want to attack the actions of volunteers for fear of discouraging the volunteers (perhaps forgetting that cache hiders are volunteers as well, in another sense, and one that is arguably more essential to the sport/hobby of geocaching than the approvers of content on a web site).

 

If we're going to operate in a loosely structured manner, where approvers act as a judiciary, shouldn't there be a way to appeal such judiciary, instead of allowing those volunteers (what is their accountability?) to be judge, jury, and (cache listing) executioner? There is (apparently) none, and the overflow falls into the forums, where it incenses forum regulars and other well-known geocaching names.

 

I've heard (both in the forums and in person) people discuss the application of the temporary cache rule (especially here), and the spirit or reasoning behind the temporary cache rule, but I have yet to see someone make a reasonable connection between the two. The result in this case (and no doubt others) is that a specific sort of problem is being addressed with a zero-tolerance policy. What happens with a zero tolerance policy? The result is that it makes things exponentially easier for the enforcers, as the need for making critical distinctions is minimized, but the number of false positives that result also greatly increase.

 

(Who are the guidelines for, anyway? Are they guidlines for approvers to decide the worth and acceptability of caches, or are they for cache hiders to improve the quality of their hides?)

 

Perhaps thought should be given to what role is more important to the sport/hobby of geocaching -- the cache hiders, the cache finders, or the cache approvers.

 

Now, I'd never tell another person that they should not protest something that they feel is wrong, but I am saddened by vds's "take my toys and go home" method of protesting this disconnect of the rules with the spirit of the rules and of the game.

 

Perhaps it is worth for us to think about how a web site, namely geocaching.com, relates to a hobby, namely geocaching, and whether these two things are vitally tied, or whether one is just a popular vehicle for the other. If splits are to form because of irreconcilable differences over the application and interpretation of rules, the best solution is one where the hundreds of us in the area that cannot affect this decision are not essentially denied the benefit of a prolific cache hider and his caches.

 

And perhaps those who want to apply their own personal standards to this hobby can have their realm to do that, and others with much more flexibile and open standards can still share that hobby with them.

[+NomadRaven]

I don't post much mostly due to the heatedness of some of these discussions and my desire to live a calm, happy life, but I felt this was important.

 

As a person who has found quite a number of your Federal Way caches, I'm sorry to hear that you're quitting, VDS. I appreciate and admire that you're taking a stance on an issue that you believe in, though.

 

Your BPA trail caches, some of the first I did, are among my favorite caching memories. Job well done. Your caches were always well-placed, well-maintained, and enjoyable.

 

All of that being said, I've been off at the Spokane Cache Machine and have missed most of this, but I had a couple of thoughts to add.

 

In order for the guidelines for this site to be effective, a reasonable person must be able to interpret them well enough that they will know whether there is a reasonable chance of them being approved. Sure, I knew that temporary caches are no longer approved, but that's because I've spent hours reading the forums. It's not reasonable to expect that every person who plans to hide a cache has skimmed every post in every forum on this site.

 

It takes considerable thought and a certain amount of time to plan where to place a cache. A cacher who is willing to take this time to provide a cache for others to enjoy ought to be able to look at the guidelines and trust that they are current and complete. As they stand, they aren't complete, and there is no non-vague guideline on how permanent a cache must be.

 

All of that being said, if fairness prevailed the cache would be approved, because it follows the guidelines. It is hidden for longer than an event and for a reasonable and somewhat extended period of time. I say somewhat extended solely because the word "extended" is so vague as to be completely useless and subject to arbitrary calls by the approver.

 

This cache follows a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines as currently stated, in my opinion, and should therefore be approved according to the guidelines that were available at the time the cache was submitted.

 

That's just my two cents. Without current, complete and concise guidelines, excellent cache placers such as VDS are likely to get frustrated. When placing a cache becomes as tedious as reading legal papers, very few people will attempt to place one.

 

That's just my two cents, if anybody cares.

 

Also, I have concerns about something. Some cachers have the opinion that a person who wants to place a temporary cache should masquerade it as a permanent cache, and edit it later to reveal its temporary nature after it is approved. This was part of a conversation I completely overheard, so I didn't want to interject -- I'm also not trying to make enemies. I know many people probably think VDS should have done this and slipped it through.

 

I think that it is awful to encourage fellow geocachers to mislead others on their cache pages. Where does one draw the line? If a person is willing to lie about permanence to gain approval, will they also lie about whether a cache is on private property? Will they hide a cache under mounds of poison ivy?

 

Strong ethics should be encouraged, not discouraged. Geocaching relies on the honor system. A certain degree of trust is involved when a person is setting out to find a cache, and I'd hate to see people encouraged to take advantage of that trust.

[+Criminal]

quote:

---

Also, I have concerns about something. Some cachers have the opinion that a person who wants to place a temporary cache should masquerade it as a permanent cache, and edit it later to reveal its temporary nature after it is approved. This was part of a conversation I completely overheard, so I didn't want to interject -- I'm also not trying to make enemies. I know many people probably think VDS should have done this and slipped it through.

---

 

I hope you don't think that is the advise I am giving here. Yes, it is an option, just not a good one. I am trying to push it towards the "hide it here for now, later move it slightly so it is permanent" direction.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+CachinCin]

I’ve been reading for an hour this morning, catching up to this discussion, since I was unable to log on while in Spokane for the cache machine. Many of the posts here have been eloquent, thoughtful, and obviously reflect ongoing discussions occurring outside of the forums. This forum thread has had much more than reactionary posting and quick, angry remarks. To me, that shows a level of concern that definitely needs to be addressed.

 

Let me start my own thoughtful (and lengthy) response with this: I am very pleased that the approvers and administrators participating here have said this issue is a high priority for them. It means that you have recognized many of us are confused (and sometimes angered) by the contradictory guidelines/rules, and that we are unhappy with the way some of these guidelines have been changed.

 

However, I am worried that when you say this is a high priority, it does not necessarily mean you are **listening** to us. Will you be deciding on what length of time constitutes a temporary cache? Or will you just be changing the text on the various pages of guidelines, stating that temporary caches are no longer allowed? Will you be reacting to us by weighing our opinions and considering options, or just by putting rules in place that will make our discussion irrelevant?

 

I am also worried that the larger issue here might be ignored. Temporary caches are just one element of this discussion. Many of us are frustrated with what we see as an arbitrary application of rules, and with changes that are made without membership input. Indeed, these changes are put into practice before we’ve even been notified. Guideline changes are sometimes announced in the forums, but most often they seem to be addressed after people (like vds) discover that some new rule is in place, preventing them from hiding a cache.

 

People may not want the forums to be filled with dissension or argument, but at this point the forums are the only place for most members’ voices to be heard. Yes, I can chat with the one or two approvers I know, but that’s behind the scenes and not a public forum. When there is an issue that is larger than the approval of just one cache, it is very appropriate that it be brought to the forums. Policy change, and the way it is made, is one of those larger issues.

 

At the same time, I recognize that the participants on the discussion forums represent quite a low percentage of the users and members of geocaching.com. You can’t just post an announcement in the General discussion area and think that most geocachers will know about it. E-mail and the main web site are the only places that can adequately reach most geocachers.

 

I am not calling for votes or asking that you personally contact every user of geocaching.com. What I would like to see, though, is an open discussion of *proposed* changes to existing guidelines of our sport. This discussion should be announced to all members, not just those that happen to be logged to the forums. Any changes should also be announced, both inside and outside of the discussion forums. Changes that are made should be edited on existing pages of guidelines (come on, that’s the easy part – and it’s the part that the web admins should do before they ask the approvers to put these changes into practice).

 

Clarity in communication is incredibly tough when you’re talking about users from around the world. Besides language and cultural issues, I’m sure it is a daunting task to think of a way of reaching such a large number of people. Geocaching.com/Groundspeak is global, it reaches a vast audience, and it needs to begin thinking about how to effectively communicate and address its members.

 

Oof – this message has gone on wayyyyy too long. My apologies for such a lengthy response.

 

Cindy

[+Wienerdog]

Unbelievable!

 

[This message was edited by Wienerdog on September 29, 2003 at 11:31 PM.]

[MarcusArelius]

I think Cindy is right this is the best place to discuss these things, not that it is optimal.

 

Open honest discussion should not be confused with griping.

 

Mark

 

[This message was edited by MarcusArelius on September 30, 2003 at 01:01 PM.]

[+CachinCin]

Sorry that you don't like what we've all been posting, Wienerdog. I have not volunteered my services to Groundspeak, but I have moderated online discussions in education and non-profit grouups, and I've researched Internet communication and communities for more than a decade. It takes an enormous amount of work to moderate discussions and work with a project like geocaching.com, and I do appreciate the time volunteers spend to help.

 

Of course, this isn't just about volunteers -- it's also about Groundspeak, which is a commercial enterprise.

 

I know how communities work, and I care deeply about the sport of geocaching...deeply enough to spend about two hours this morning composing my message. Honestly, I've been surprised at the level of thoughtfulness and good will that has existed in this discussion. Debate is healthy, and criticism is necessary for growth. This group has managed to primarily focus on suggestions and thoughtful contributions -- I've been impressed, not appalled as you are.

 

Cin

[+Wienerdog]

No comment.

 

[This message was edited by Wienerdog on September 29, 2003 at 11:33 PM.]