Camping Event controversy

[Happy Humphrey]

For those that have followed the latest "hot topic" on the UK Forum, there has been a temporary ban on posting on this subject. I'm not exactly clear why, as the discussion seemed to be very well-mannered but had not really covered all the issues fully.

It seems relevant to the GAGB forum too, so why not continue here?

As it happens, I was ready with a posting but did a final check just before submitting, and discovered that I was no longer allowed to discuss this topic there.
I have some opinions which I'd like to air (and I don't want to waste all that text I have sitting waiting to post! ).

So here goes: and like a camping event, you can simply choose to ignore it if you like!

I've no idea of the logic behind closing the original thread. After reading the thread, despite some excellent posts I've no idea what "open to all" means any more in relation to the guidelines.

Key to the discussion is that an event venue has to be a suitable gathering place for geocachers. As far as I can see, this could be a campsite, a pub, a hotel, a car park, a clearing in a forest, a mountain top...lots of alternatives.

In my opinion, the venue should be essentially "open to all". What this means is not that everyone in the whole world will be able to sign the "attended" log without any trouble or expense. It simply means that the vast majority of geocachers will not be automatically excluded.

So the other key point is that of "exclusivity". Why is that a problem?

Common sense tells me that certain events should be disallowed if they're designed to be exclusive: e.g. only war veterans are allowed. The logic being that there's a suspicion that it's really a meeting of war veterans, and the "event" doesn't exist: the meeting might well take place anyway, and the limitation is designed to discourage all but a certain crowd from joining in.

If the only limiting factor is the venue or activity, then this shouldn't necessarily be regarded as being "exclusive". So discussions about whether non-campers have to be allowed to attend, or whether you have to take part in the fox hunt shouldn't really enter in to it. The reviewer would be satisfied at this stage that the basic function of the meeting is for geocachers to meet, and it's unlikely to go ahead without the geocaching.com listing being published. That's what really counts.

If camping, or the fox hunt, is central to the event then it seems fair enough to expect attendees to either take part or not turn up. Should someone want to sign the log but not take part: well, let them if they can find the log book but make it clear that there will be no special effort to make the book accessible to "outsiders" or non-participants.

Where would I draw the line? The instant that there's an indication that the event is somehow piggy-backing on something that may already be arranged without the event listing. That's why if too much exclusivity seems to exist for no apparent reason, it may point to an attempt to keep people out who are not wanted at the event.

An obvious example is if I decide that the next monthly climbing club pub meet can be designated an "event cache": two others in the club are cachers so they can "log" it. But I wouldn't want the inconvenience of having to deal with non-members trying to join in, so I designate it open to climbing club members only. Job done: but it's never a geocaching event.

[Dave Gerrie]

all good points there...

what I was going to ask is whether the topic title can be altered. My personal opinion is that, although this issue came to light regarding camping events, I feel it affects lots of events where some kind of 'activity' is required beyond merely turning up at some point. So whether that is climbing snowdon, joining in on a boat trip, pitching a tent, or driving manically around yorkshire, the principal is the same. Should we be able to require participation in the activity in order to log the event? IMO, yes (within reason, and as HH says, as long as it isn't designed to exlude people per se) but merely not wanting to camp, or not being fit enough to walk, or even having a fear of boats shouldn't mean they have a right to be accomodated in some way if that devalues the event itself.

discuss!

[The Cache Hoppers]

Good thinking HH

I thought pooks summed it up perfectly in his/her posting on the thread with "I get the impression that Groundspeak/Reviewers have got themselves into an unneccessary hole with too many rules, which somehow deviates from the spontenaeity of the game." Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to say so because the thread was closed down before I'd even read the posting.

Personally I do not feel the reasons given for closing the thread were valid or have done anything to prevent the same thing occurring in the future.

People should be able to voice their opinions without fear of being targetted with hate mail - presumably the person/persons could not respond in the way they did on the forums for fear of being banned. If their identities are known, they should receive a ban anyway.

I do hope that all the rules/guidelines, established or ever-evolving, will not cause people to think twice about organising events. I've attended some really good ones this year, and hope I will be able to next year.

[jacobite]

Good thinking HH
Personally I do not feel the reasons given for closing the thread were valid or have done anything to prevent the same thing occurring in the future.

Same here! There's nothing stopping the abusive emailer from targeting another post by the "victim" (on another thread), what's going to happen in that event? are all the threads they post in going to be closed? That's just nuts!

I was enjoying that debate. I thought it had a lot of merit, and folks were getting their point across. Well done for bringing it over here, HH.

[Happy Humphrey]

I know that this isn't limited to Camping events, but the topic title is merely to suggest a link with the original topic so it's probably better to leave it.
I agree with everything that's been posted here! Pooks's post was also a very good one.

[Lost in Space]

"Exclusive/non exclusive, allowed/not allowed to log"..........

I thought geocaching was not about the numbers but just about visiting nice sites/meeting interesting people............

[sTeamTraen]

I thought pooks summed it up perfectly in his/her posting on the thread with "I get the impression that Groundspeak/Reviewers have got themselves into an unneccessary hole with too many rules, which somehow deviates from the spontenaeity of the game."

If anyone has got themselves in a "hole" over this - and if they have, it's not a very deep one - then I suppose it would be the UK reviewers when they decided that "open to all" was not compatible with a "must camp overnight" requirement. I sympathise with the intention, but I think it's impossible to make an event truly "open to all" anyway. If it's on a Saturday night you're probably excluding most orthodox Jews, for example.

My interpretation of "open to all" is that there should be no preconditions such as "no men allowed" (yes, such an event was submitted, and rejected, in the US), or "everyone is welcome except cacher X" (this happened not so very far from the UK a month or so ago); and that costs should be reasonable (a $5 cover charge at an event location is about the maximum that goes through on the nod).

On the other hand, I wish that people wouldn't come up with such rigid requirements, either for events or strange additional logging requirements for caches. Perhaps the event owner could just say, "All are welcome, but please don't log this event as 'Attended' unless you camp overnight". Smileys are free, and if someone really really really decides that they're entitled to one for showing up for ten minutes at sundown, well, that's their lookout - and anyway, they can just log another event twice if they want the smiley.

Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.

[Lost in Space]

Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.

Hurrah! Agree entirely.

(But won't we all miss the flame wars from those to whom numbers, and smileys, mean everything?)

N

[The Cache Hoppers]

Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds.

Nah, sorry, that's just plain dumb Before we know it we will have an argument against trads, multis, puzzles - and before you know it, there will be nothing to log!

[Lost in Space]

Nah, sorry, that's just plain dumb Before we know it we will have an argument against trads, multis, puzzles - and before you know it, there will be nothing to log!

Actually that could be the basis of an interesting proposal:- Do away with GS keeping, and publishing, "found" totals.

It would certainly put an end to the rivalry, mundane and flame war postings.........

[The Royles]

A couple of years back, when this debate first started I suggested that camping events could be listed but not loggable. Was told no by the reviewers.

I have to say that the angst shown by people who feel deprived of a smiley is very surprising.

[Happy Humphrey]

On the other hand, I wish that people wouldn't come up with such rigid requirements, either for events or strange additional logging requirements for caches. Perhaps the event owner could just say, "All are welcome, but please don't log this event as 'Attended' unless you camp overnight". Smileys are free, and if someone really really really decides that they're entitled to one for showing up for ten minutes at sundown, well, that's their lookout - and anyway, they can just log another event twice if they want the smiley.

Agreed. My original post here was merely to point out that (in principle) an event should be allowed as long as it's clearly a genuine event arranged for geocachers.

Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.

I think it would have been better from the start had events not been set up as "caches", but had their own separate category. Perhaps one day they will be.

Actually that could be the basis of an interesting proposal:- Do away with GS keeping, and publishing, "found" totals.

It would certainly put an end to the rivalry, mundane and flame war postings.........

That would be merely pandering to a small minority who take it all much too seriously. I believe that the majority don't see an event as simply a way of gaining a smiley and wouldn't be that bothered if they didn't get one. But whilst not taking it too seriously I like to see the running totals of goecaches found, and I think that quite a significant proportion of cachers also like it. To do away with it just to confound those who get a bit carried away seems rather sledgehammer-and-nut.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

If anyone has got themselves in a "hole" over this - and if they have, it's not a very deep one - then I suppose it would be the UK reviewers when they decided that "open to all" was not compatible with a "must camp overnight" requirement. I sympathise with the intention, but I think it's impossible to make an event truly "open to all" anyway. If it's on a Saturday night you're probably excluding most orthodox Jews, for example.

To be honest I resent accusations that the UK Reviewers dug themselves into a Hole! We have local Reviewers to take account of local situations, the Open to All element for Camping events here in the UK being part of that. The situation in France is different to that in the UK.

If you wish to accuse any one of digging themselves into a hole I'd suggest you have a look at a rigid application of the Power Trail Guideline something the UK has not been on the end of. Especially as I've yet to see a proper definition of what one is. At least the Open to All element is clear, and the reason goes back to a camping event organised by the person who brought up the topic on GC. Who is incorrect in his assumption that just a single non UK cacher complained.

Oh and there is no Controversy as suggested by the title. The persons who made the abusive emails did so in a way which they could not be directly ID by Groundspeak. As GC was used as a way to gain access to make contact to harass the recipient, and the Camping Topic was the reason for that harassment. I took the decision to close the topic. And I was completely open about why I'd closed it!

As a Reviewer/Moderator I personally expect to be the recipient of abuse, but I will not allow abuse of Members by members. If I upset but not abuse other members doing this so be it. It's easy to criticise decisions when your not the person making them! By closing the Topic I removed a subject over which a member was abused, I upset other members but they can in no way say they were abused!

[sTeamTraen]

To be honest I resent accusations that the UK Reviewers dug themselves into a Hole!

Dave, I probably wasn't clear enough... I, at least, was trying to say that there basically isn't a hole. You and the other reviewers made a decision which deserved respect from the community. Had you made the opposite decision, someone else would probably have made a major issue out of that. We all make a small dent in the ground whenever we take any decision of principle; if people choose to call it a hole, regardless of its depth, then that's up to them.

[The Royles]

At least the Open to All element is clear, and the reason goes back to a camping event organised by the person who brought up the topic on GC. Who is incorrect in his assumption that just a single non UK cacher complained.

The open to all element is indeed clear, and is being applied correctly everywhere else apart from the UK. Open to all is taken to mean that no one is excluded, it is not taken to mean that there can be no requirement to be met to attend.

By the way, am I getting my events confused or was the issue with GCWDHD which was The Ollies event.

edit to add: What is the difference between an event in France and the same one in the UK ?

[The Hornet]

As one of the UK reviewers I would like to agree with Dave (Deci/Mancunian) that we didn't see that we had dug ourselves into a hole. If anything we were trying to provide UK cachers a way out of another hole that Groundspeak had dug for themselves over a too rigid application of a guideline. Where Groundspeak had(/have) a history of disallowing anything unless it clearly met their view of what caching ought to be, we always used to try and allow everything unless it clearly went against the ethos of what WE thought caching was trying to be. Maybe there was some arrogance on our part in this approach but we did what we thought best. I think it is significant that the only real criticisms we got was for being TOO lax.

On a personal level I'd like to agree with LIS that although I've enjoyed several events, I have never considered them as caches. To me a cache involves a challenge to find something, either physical in the form of a container or virtual in the form of some information at a pre-defined location. "Finding" a pub, while always welcome :cheers: or campsite really doesn't count.

[sTeamTraen]

What is the difference between an event in France and the same one in the UK ?

The food is better at one of them, and the beer is better at the other.

[The Hornet]

The food is better at one of them, and the beer is better at the other.

I've never found French beer particularly good

[Alan White]

Groundspeak's guidelines say "Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers" (my emphasis). So is this another case of "we do things differently here"?

Surely the question is "what is meant by 'open to all'"? It cannot possibly, by any common sense, mean that an event has to be available to every cacher, and nor should it. I have never organised an event and am never likely to, but if I did then I would no doubt organise it in such a way that it would attract the cachers I was hoping would attend. If I were interested in camping then I would want to attract other campers; if I were interested in drinking, other drinkers; mountain climbing, other climbers. If someone goes to the significant effort to organise an event then they have the right to specify what form the event should take. Potential attendees are free to choose whether to attend or not.

The most common venue for an event seems to be a pub. This automatically excludes, from most pubs, children and those who have religious or moral objections to the sale and advertising of alchohol. Until recently, it would also have excluded those who like their atmosphere untainted by cigarette smoke. Yet no-one has suggested that pubs are an unsuitable venue for an event.

This is no different from any other cache, and there's no suggestion that all caches should be open to all. There are caches that require climbing, thus preventing those without the necessary equipment and training from visiting; there are puzzle caches which can only be solved by university professors, thus eliminating those of us who aren't; there are caches in tunnels and bunkers, thus eliminating those who are unable to deal with confined spaces. The list is endless.

If someone places a cache that you can't or don't want to visit, then don't visit it. If someone organises an event which you can't or don't want to attend, then don't attend. It really is that simple.

In both caches and events, variety is what gives the hobby its interest. Reducing caches and events to a single level of homogeneity is not in the interest of the hobby. But then, this is hardly the first time that Groundspeak's rules have restricted the hobby, and it's unlikely to be the last.

Remember that we're discussing what Groundspeak is prepared to list as an event. If the event can't be listed by Groundspeak then it can be listed elsewhere or publicised by email or on forums such as here or the many regional forums. Surely it's not just the Groundspeak smiley that this comes down to?

[Lost in Space]

.... Surely it's not just the Groundspeak smiley that this comes down to?.....

That's what it looks like to me.

[Simply Paul]

As someone who's had a fair share of dealings with Groundspeak and its agents over what constitutes an event and what doesn't, I think I can write with some authority on this matter. The problem is, what has been allowed in the past may not be allowed again, so whatever experience I have can be rendered worthless.

The issue I've most often faced is the 'not just getting together to do some caches' clause. Groundspeak want something more sociable than that, even though I've found the hill climbing/walking types of events I'd attended and/or held some of the most sociable ones I've been to. There's something of the shared experience/bonding in walking or climbing miles together, which isn't true of sitting in a pub.

Anyway, when I held a climb of Scafell Pike (Aug 2006) I was obliged to add a pub element at the end, but since we'd be walking back to Wasdale Inn, it was no problem to include it- I felt it was fitting that we end up in a pub, but if someone had claimed a find for just turning up at the pub, I'd have felt they'd missed the point, and spirit of the event. However, I accepted Groundspeak's conditions in listing the event and would have let an 'interloper's' Attended stand. There's no pub at the foot of Ben Nevis for my event next year, so I don't know how I'm going to plicate GS then. I really want to avoid 'meet us in the car park for a smiley' so, if allowed, will list the co-ords as the top of the mountain. My argument being if you don't visit the co-ords, you didn't attend the meet at the UK's highest trigpoint (also a past Ye Ole Survey Monument - BOGOF!) I hope the ruling on 'open to all' isn't applied weirdly- The cache at the top of the mountain is open to all, even if it's beyond everyone to reach it.

The difference, as I see it, with a camping event where you're expected to camp is an extra requirement has been applied. If I attended such an event from 5pm to 2am, left as everyone went to bed, slept at home, returned at 8am as folks were getting up and joined in the fun and games until the late afternoon, I'd feel as if I'd attended and contributed to the event and would -reasonably, I'd say- feel I deserved to say I 'Attended' it. I know this is a little extreme as an example, but it highlights the problem of what is perceived to be the 'point' of an event, and what Groundspeak feel is appropriate when allowing one to be listed on their site.

[The Royles]

Alan:

As far as I am concerned listing a camping event has nothing to do with the smiley. It is to make use of the mechanism which informs people of the event. If this was done by email or forums, a significant section of cachers (mostly new people) would not know about it. As the idea of the events is to include as many cachers as possible they are not really valid alternatives. When helping to organise a camping event following the original ruling I asked could the event be listed but no-one be allowed to log an attended as the camp site owner did not want day visitors. I was told that this was not acceptable.

Paul:

In the situation you outline in your last paragraph, no one would suggest you had not attended the event. The issue arises when the camp site owner does not allow day visitors. I think I speak for all camping organisers when I say that we try as much as possible to make the events open to day visitors, but sometimes it is just not possible without tacking on a pub meet.

As I see it, the extra requirement that your expected to camp is no different to any other requirement listed for an event (going for a walk, meeting in a pub, meeting in a park etc) - it is just a matter of a bit harder to do for some people - maybe we should list them as 5/5 events :wacko:. Camping events (and indeed lots of other types of events that require a high degree of participation) are published in all other countries without the "open to all" aspect being questioned, so why is the UK different.

[Lost in Space]

...........but it highlights the problem of what is perceived to be the 'point' of an event......

As stated earlier, most people, (those getting a bee under their bonnet on these forums), seem to think it is the acquisition of a Groundspeak smiley.

LiS

[Happy Humphrey]

Like others here, I don't see the problem with a requirement being specified for an "attended" log, as long as it's appropriate, reasonable and in the spirit of the event. It seems ludicrous to have to set up an alternative just in case someone wants the event to be in the format they prefer.

For example: an event is on top of a mountain. I think that the organiser should be able to stipulate that attendees are expected to make a genuine effort to climb the mountain. Should the occasional cacher turn up in the car park just to have a chat, I can't see the problem with allowing them to log the event if they really want to but the organiser should not be obliged to make arrangements around this. In the camping example, perhaps there are cases where there's no practical alternative to having to camp. I'd have thought that the organiser merely has to make this clear on the event page: it's still "open to all" - you just have to camp.

The people I take issue with are those that complain in advance that they're "excluded" because they can't or won't take part in the activity.
They should be told to exercise their right to not turn up.

[Lost in Space]

I give up.........................

[Simply Paul]

Well ok then- the problem with a camp site which doesn't allow day visitors is that it's effectively become a 'pay-to-play' location, no different from my trying to hold an event inside the fence at next year's Silverstone Grand Prix rather than outside. I suppose you could argue that you're 'expected' to buy a drink in a pub too, and I'd agree. The idea of a truly 'non-commercial' and 'inclusive' location would be one you don't even have to drive to... https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...3-1937ac2f4ef2

What I personally wouldn't want to see is a repeat of this sort of thing: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...4-a6dd9a43f235 , where there was a charge to participate, and many people didn't feel they'd had value for money. Charging non-campers to not-camp at a campsite would only cause friction (unless people are a lot more relaxed about their money than I am) and I can see why some folks might feel that's not in the spirit of an 'open to all' geocaching event. Given that not all campsites have a 'no visitors' policy, is it unreasonable to think that camping events should (could?) be held where they are allowed on site? I know if I was thinking of a daytime, weekend pub event, I'd want one where children and dogs were welcome, if at all possible.

That all said, I've never actually attended a geocamping event, so I'm not speaking from any sort of personal experience. I just think events with a broad appeal ought to be as accessible as possible. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Dave Gerrie]

As stated earlier, most people, (those getting a bee under their bonnet on these forums), seem to think it is the acquisition of a Groundspeak smiley.

LiS

huh? I think a significant number of people here hold the opposite view - namely, that an event shouldn't have to be significantly altered, adjusted, dumbed down or whatever, just so that cachers who don't want to take part in the main activity can receive a smiley.

I think its important for GS to be able to list events, in order to publicise and formalise a getting together of cachers. Like it or not, the vast majority of cachers only 'see' GS listings - no forums, no e-mail with other cachers, so the only way to advertise them is through the listings. Whether they should be included in found cache numbers is more debatable, I agree. I like seeing them there, but I won't get that upset if they are removed! Having said that, how many people would have not attended the Mega Event if it wasn't for the funky new icon?!

I'd very much like to see Paul list his latest walking event (Nevis?) with coordinates at the top. I can't see how this could be rejected, so long as no additional requirements are made. Obviously, the cache page could mention how some people will be getting to the top coordinates, and when they will be leaving...

[Alan White]

As the idea of the events is to include as many cachers as possible [email or forums] are not really valid alternatives.

Perhaps, but I suspect you misunderstand the power of the forums. Sure, not all cachers will read the forums but I think there are many lurkers and word of mouth will do the rest.

In any case, since the primary purpose of an event is the social side, which is also a purpose of the forums, then the intersection of those sets will include a fair proportion of the target attendees. This would apply particularly to the local forums.

To give you an example, I never attend events, I never look at event cache pages, I don't download events in PQs. So I never see events by the "normal" means. But I often know when local events are occurring because they're mentioned in forums and in emails I receive from other local cachers. If I wanted to attend those events I could do so without ever having looked at the cache page.

[Mrs Blorenge]

Alan:
<snip> it is just a matter of a bit harder to do for some people - maybe we should list them as 5/5 events :wacko: <snip>

... something like the Hanging Around Whitestone event, maybe?

Until this discussion started last week, I had no idea about this problem/anomaly/slight annoyance* about 'stand alone' camping events.
I'm not really a camper - the few camping events I've attended I've just kipped in a corner of a friend's tent - but I started considering how I'd feel if there was a Camping Event organised 2 miles from our house and the Site didn't allow day visitors...

Hmmm. Nope, wouldn't bother me at all. I know we'd still be able to meet up with friends who would be in the area. We'd still contribute to the Event by putting out an extra cache or two if required.

As others have said, not everyone can do every cache, you have to make choices... and that applies to Event caches too.

[*delete according to how strongly you feel about this matter]

[Dave Gerrie]

Perhaps, but I suspect you misunderstand the power of the forums. Sure, not all cachers will read the forums but I think there are many lurkers and word of mouth will do the rest.

In any case, since the primary purpose of an event is the social side, which is also a purpose of the forums, then the intersection of those sets will include a fair proportion of the target attendees. This would apply particularly to the local forums.

To give you an example, I never attend events, I never look at event cache pages, I don't download events in PQs. So I never see events by the "normal" means. But I often know when local events are occurring because they're mentioned in forums and in emails I receive from other local cachers. If I wanted to attend those events I could do so without ever having looked at the cache page.

well i guess having completely agreed with you first posting, its now back to normal and time to disagree!

I'd love to give you an example of the many many people who don't read the forums, local or national, don't have the phone number of any other cacher, and don't have e-mail contact with any other cacher, but I can't - because I don't know them...

Seriously, I see lots and lots of logs on our caches (well, the trads anyway!) from fairly local cachers, who I've never heard of. How are they supposed to find out about them? I also know a number of local cachers through e-mail, but they don't read the forums. I wouldn't feel the need to inform them of upcoming events unless they were local.

Anyway, I suspect folks don't really object to listing them as such, but rather the inclusion in the find count...

[Alan White]

Dave, I think we do agree on the principle under discussion. I was just saying that we need to remember that what we're talking about is Groundspeak's rules about what it and its representatives think make an event cache.

But it's not up to Groundspeak to determine how cachers should socialise, so I was suggesting other ways to achieve the objective. I accept that my suggestions aren't perfect, but even Groundspeak suggest using email and forums for events that they won't list.

To return to the real point: Mrs B makes the sensible statement which I think all but one or two of those who have expressed a view agree with. The question is: will Groundspeak listen to those views?

[Dave Gerrie]

Dave, I think we do agree on the principle under discussion. I was just saying that we need to remember that what we're talking about is Groundspeak's rules about what it and its representatives think make an event cache.

But it's not up to Groundspeak to determine how cachers should socialise, so I was suggesting other ways to achieve the objective. I accept that my suggestions aren't perfect, but even Groundspeak suggest using email and forums for events that they won't list.

To return to the real point: Mrs B makes the sensible statement which I think all but one or two of those who have expressed a view agree with. The question is: will Groundspeak listen to those views?

i suspect you're right - whether to list events isn't really the topic of discussion anyway! Obviously, lots of other ways can also be utilised to advertise them when necessary!

I'm not quite sure if it requires a GS policy decision? Doesn't it boil down to the interpretation of 'Open to All', and the stricter interpretation of that is being applied at a local level I believe.

[The Royles]

The problem is that Groundspeak do seem to accept camping type events, I have seen lots listed for USA, it is our local reviewers interpretation of "open to all" that appears to be the sticking point. Deci has stated several times that it was the UK reviewers who decided on this stance, and they seem to be sticking by it

[Alan White]

If that's the nub of the matter then, as Deceangi suggested on the Groundspeak forum, the way forward is for someone to organise a camping event, have it rejected by the GB reviewers, then appeal to Groundspeak.

The problem with this is that Groundspeak, unsurprisingly, always side with their reviewers and so the event will remain rejected. Groundspeak will almost certainly use their "no precedence" rule and say that just because there are camping events in the USA doesn't mean there can be camping events in GB.

This is exactly the reverse of the pubs discussion a few months back, in which the Americans were complaining that they weren't allowed to have caches mentioning pubs but the British were. At best the appeal may initiate an internal discussion which would at least normalise the rules. We may not like the result, though.

[dino]

The problem with this is that Groundspeak, unsurprisingly, always side with their reviewers and so the event will remain rejected.

Ah....no they don't! I have had decisions overturned by Groundspeak and I've had personal interpretations of the guidelines torn to pieces. Many of these discussions happen pre-publication so you don't see them unless you're involved. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't happen!

[Alan White]

Naturally you have more experience than I in such matters, but of course I can only say what I know and can only speak from my own experience. I've appealed to Groundspeak on many occasions and the appeal has always been rejected, even though the caches had been published in contravention of even the most liberal interpretation of the guidelines.

But in this case it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the only way to resolve the current question one way or the other is for an event organiser to appeal. And there's the problem. It's not like placing a cache and then going back to collect it if the listing isn't approved. Someone has to organise an event, have it rejected, then appeal. It'll be a brave or principled person who organises an event knowing that it will be rejected, merely to provide a test case.

[dino]

of course I can only say what I know and can only speak from my own experience

Then you shouldn't make generalised statements. It demeans your argument

[Alan White]

Not at all. Everyone can only ever speak from their own experience.

Now, let's get back to the more important issue of how this problem is going to be resolved. Or don't Groundspeak actually care?

[Dave Gerrie]

as this is a 'UK issue'. ie. how our reviewers are interpreting the guidelines, I am hopeful that GS wouldn't need to be involved. Would our reviewers consider relaxing their interpretation of open to all, possible in line with the two [posts that I highlighted on the GS forums https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/in...post&p=3656595

Maybe a poll could be started to see whether events should be allowed that require an activity to be undertaken before logging, be it climbing a mountain, camping, or taking part in a fox hunt. Deci has kindly explained what his current reviewing position is, but hasn't said (I don't think anyway) whether he would be open to a change of policy if the majority are in favour.

Obviously, allowing the usual flexibility that our reviewers have, events can be not published if it is felt that they aren't open to all, for whatever reason, but that restriction should be one that is imposed by the event setter, not a self-imposed restriction by the attendee (as P&T sensibly put it). A exampple would be one that says that only catholics can attend, which is clearly unacceptable.

[rutson]

This is difficult, I've mainly stayed out of the discussion for several reasons.

I think we're one step away from having virtually no events if we're not careful.

My M+D=S events exclude kids and those who can't get out without their kids in the evenings. I just cannot see how that's different from having an event at the summit of Snowdon for example.

[Dave Gerrie]

i totally agree, and just to make clear (although I'm sure you didn't think I meant this) I have no problem with those whatsoever (apart from being bl**dy miles away!) I'm sure that the majority of events will exclude some people somehow, in some way. At the very least, venue size will dictate. Allergies and eating requirements, various phobias. I can't think of any event that, aside from travelling issues, would be open to everyone in the UK.

[Alan White]

as this is a 'UK issue'. ie. how our reviewers are interpreting the guidelines, I am hopeful that GS wouldn't need to be involved.

Groundspeak has often made it clear that it doesn't want its reviewers interpreting the guidelines in different ways (remember April 2008 ) so I'm not as hopeful as you .

[Happy Humphrey]

I also agree with Dave and Ian. The "open to all" test should be simply: does the event have artificial limitations, or is the proposed venue or activity deliberately chosen, in order to exclude certain people or groups?

If not then it's open to all, even if effectively it excludes some people as a side effect of the proposed venue or activity.

Unless every event has to be exactly the same (which will exclude those who get bored with the same format!), then there will always be the side effect that some don't fancy the activity or venue, or will find it too difficult to meet the requirements. As long as it's only a side effect, I don't see the problem.

[rutson]

i totally agree, and just to make clear (although I'm sure you didn't think I meant this) I have no problem with those whatsoever (apart from being bl**dy miles away!)

Pah! You've been to one ;-) (GCX59H)

[Simply Paul]

How about this? Would a physical cache be allowed there? Pub garden? Maybe. Mountain top? Sure. Location where you have to pay to enter or else wouldn't be allowed in...?

While it might seem I have something against camping events where you have to camp, I don't. I own a tent and enjoy camping. However, as my event close to a Go Ape site, with the option of Going Ape if you wanted to was a commercial undertaking (according to Groundspeak), what's any event with a requirement to pay to take part? From my experience, unlistable. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying I can understand why some people might find the 'you must camp to get a smiley' attitude by some organisers -forced into it by their choice of camp site- unnecessarily restrictive. When I set up an event to climb Scafell Pike, it was no more restrictive than the physical cache at the top; If you could afford to get to the location, and were fit enough to climb, you were in. This isn't true of pay-to-play event locations, which is why I'm wary of pubs as cache event locations, even though the majority of cachers -and the Reviewing team- seem to have no issue with them, happily.

[keehotee]

They're not Events - they're Event Caches.
Following the same train of logic that led to events having to have a soft option to allow everybody to attend regardless of difficulty or terrain - shouldn't all caches similarly have a 1/1 alternative for anybody that can't climb a hill, solve a puzzle, or drive more than a mile from home?

[Happy Humphrey]

They're not Events - they're Event Caches.
Following the same train of logic that led to events having to have a soft option to allow everybody to attend regardless of difficulty or terrain - shouldn't all caches similarly have a 1/1 alternative for anybody that can't climb a hill, solve a puzzle, or drive more than a mile from home?

Quite: it's very silly!

It's a good point though, and also mentioned by Alan: if you have a 5/5 multicache you MAY allow someone's log to stand if they didn't follow the trail but accidentally stumbled upon the cache, or if there was a flaw in your design which allowed them to log it without all the work.
But the point is, you aren't required to publicise the final cache location to satisfy those who complain about being excluded from the find due to disability/laziness/lack of spare time/lack of finance/disinterest. So why the rule for events?
Interestingly, ALR caches are allowed: where you can delete logs from people who don't follow whatever whimsical requirement you specify.

[The Royles]

I have had a reply from Groundspeak on this issue. The main point of the email is:

There is no minimum time that one needs to be at an event to log that event. Therefore an event that required an overnight stay to log the event would not be listed on our site.

So there we have it, we have gone from commercial issues, to open to all issues, and now time issues.

Methinks some reviewer somewhere doesnt like camping

[The Phillimore Clan]

I have had a reply from Groundspeak on this issue. The main point of the email is:



So there we have it, we have gone from commercial issues, to open to all issues, and now time issues.

Methinks some reviewer somewhere doesnt like camping

Now I'm more confused than ever , not that that takes much .
So does that mean no more flash mob events as generally you are expected to be there for 15 minutes : , or an event that requires you to climb a hill as that to will take time.
So where in the guidelines is this "rule!" written?
Oh sorry, stupid me, it must be in that big book of unwritten rules .
I give in, think I'll go get a beer.

[jacobite]

I'm starting to think that the more this debate goes on, the more clouded the issue becomes. I did think it was going somewhere, but now I'm just seeing repetitive posts, and like the philmore clan, confusion is setting in.

There is a lack of clarity from GSP regarding this issue, this being a source of frustration to many (including myself). So, if I were a member wishing to hold such an event, this is how I would go about it?

Simply outline the proposed event, and present it to a member of the UK reviewing team. If there are any problems, they can be ironed out at that stage. The event can then be built on until You (and the UK reviewing team), are satisfied with the result.
IMO, going about things in the fashion will eliminate the disappointment of an event being rejected, after a lot of hard work has already gone into it.