Commercial Caching- Your Thoughts?

[JollyJax]

With reference to GC1W5H9, the commercial cache that was published with the express permission of GS today. What are your opinions?

Have we now got a new type of cache? Two boxes and one cache listing?

Not publishing the intermediate waypoints for a multi-cache is strange too isnt it?

I wont be rushing out to hire a GPS from them or pay the £3 entry fee in order to complete this cache.

Team Hippo used to have a cache here but once admissions were charged he archived the cache I beleive....

[Bear and Ragged]

One box, but two routes to it?

If you sign the log twice, can you log two smilies?

[martybartfast]

I don't see the mechanics of it as being that out of the ordinary for a Multi. Go to these co-ords and collect some info which will lead you to the cache is pretty normal, just in this case the info is on a leaflet. Once you have the leaflet there's an easy route or a more difficult route. Most caches can be approached by more than one route, some of which may be easier than others.

What I'm unhappy about is that apparently someone had a cache here originally which was archived (in line with GS guidelines) when admission charges appeared and now the landowner has placed a cache requiring an admission fee

[Just Roger]

Easy Answer - It's gone straight onto my Ignore List.

[nobbynobbs]

I'd consider it like any other cache. If i fancy going in and think the fee is reasonable then ok, if not then ignore.

[The Hornet]

As Groundspeak is a private company I guess they can do whatever they want, including exempting themselves from their own guidelines.

I wonder if they'll let me set up a "pay per hunt" cache in my own back garden? h34r:

[keehotee]

What was the cache?
It now says it hasn't been published yet.......

[Just Roger]

What was the cache?
It now says it hasn't been published yet.......

Interesting - it was definitely there at 0600 this morning. Groundspeak having second thoughts in the middle of the night??

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Groundspeak do reserve the right to publish caches which do not meet the Guidelines

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting. But as the cache owner you are responsible for placement and care of your cache. Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site.

And do allow caches in locations where there is a Entrance Fee, usually locations which are a "Not for Profit" basis. The cache in Question is located on a site owned by The University of Oxford, there is no information to indicate that the site is run by a "For Profit" company owned by the University. So I am guessing it has been treated exactly the same as other "Not for Profit" locations where there is a cache.

This "Not for Profit" allowance would cover and does a organisation such as the National Trust as well, where a entrance fee is charged per person and not just for parking [meaning that you have to pay to access the site, even if you are on foot].

Deci

[JollyJax]

As usual Dave your clarity has helped me form a more moderated opinion. Many thanks for taking the flack ... over .. and over

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Oh no need for the Flak on this one I wasn't the Reviewer involved who wisely passed it upstairs for them to make the big Yes/No.

Allowing caches in Not For Profit locations who charge a entrance fee, opens up locations which would over wise be closed to caching on GC.

Deci

[Graculus]

Yup.... when it came for review I too thought it was commercial, so following our SOP (standard operating procedure) I bumped it to 'them upstairs'. The answer has come back and that's all I need to know

Chris
aka - Graculus - volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

[Simply Paul]

"Sorry, you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published." seems to suggest the decision to publish taken Up Stairs, has been reversed.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

"Sorry, you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published." seems to suggest the decision to publish taken Up Stairs, has been reversed.

Sorry Paul but the Retraction had nothing to do with the decision taken by Groundspeak to allow publication. But a separate and unrelated issue.

Deci

[keehotee]

I seem to recall that the commercial aspect has been allowed for in the ratings system too, and compulsory entrance/parking fees automatically attract a 5 terrain rating?

[Graculus]

Sorry - I meant to add to my previous post after I'd submitted it and as I was at work my phone rang and I got sidetracked (no, not that type of sidetracked) and forgot...... I did publish the cache and then realised a minor problem I'd missed so retracted it.... I am only human after all..... well after my day at work I'm barely human....
Why do we have to have bosses? They are nothing but a nuisance in the otherwise smooth running of your working day...

Anyway, sorry for any confusion. Just waiting for the owner to get back to me.

Chris
Graculus

[jacobite]

I must not reply, I must not reply, I must not reply.................phew.........nearly another rant h34r:

[sTeamTraen]

I seem to recall that the commercial aspect has been allowed for in the ratings system too, and compulsory entrance/parking fees automatically attract a 5 terrain rating?

Nope, just the "$" attribute. Generally, caches like this can be published even without Groundspeak's say-so, if they are placed by a regular cacher. In this case the kick upstairs was justified by the possibly "promotional" nature of the cache, seeing as how it was placed by the people who get your 3 quid.

The previous cache on this site was archived by the owner at their own initiative when the admission charge was introduced, because they didn't want to bring people to a location which charged admission. Having paid something eye-watering to enter Kew Gardens a couple of years back (OK, I got more than one cache out of it) I can confirm that "pay-to-play" is not unusual and that 3 quid is not the high end of the scale!

Still, count me in with those who are curious to see what constitutes a find in this case, with two trails on one listing.