GAGB Guideline not met, cache denied?

[Lord Boogie]

As always, any cache owner who is not happy with how their cache has been reviewed can contact Groundspeak by sending an email to appeals@geocaching.com.

Glad that's all sorted then

Besides the GAGB guidelines and English law what other rules addendum to the groundspeak requirements when placing a cache should adhere to?

You see we are in a situation of inconsistency I do not know what is a rule and what is a guideline. A previous poster referenced GAGB as guidelines but spoke in the context as an adopted rule set.

I have seen many caches placed, recently, that comply with Groundspeak requirements but not all of the relevant GAGB guidelines. Some are obviously not compliant some not so obvious. I do not think it is asking much for a reviewer who speaks English, who reviews in England to comment on what is and is not officially a rule. And that said it is also not too much to ask that all caches are subject to the same professional scrutiny so to fairly uphold the high standards we all expect.

If it is the case that the guidelines are at the discretion of the reviewer do you not think that moral standards are very low if these are then applied at whim to some but not all, in part or in full or as a punitive measure? I do.

[Graculus]

What information am I not providing?
The only thing you might not see is where my cache was denied for the "commercial advertisement" because i mentioned "tupperware". That genuinely did happen, it was just on [url=http://coord.info/GC2ZCGW]another[/ur] cache.
If you're going to accuse me of being deceitful then provide the details I've got nothing to hide here.

So, rather than help by giving me your permission to quote what both the reviewers and you said during the review process so everyone can understand exactly why the cache is not being published as I asked you to do you instead accuse me of saying you are deceitful.

There is one simple reason your cache is not being published. It's not the guideline, it's not the GAGB, it's not the reviewers and it's not Groundspeak..... That leaves just one thing doesn't it?

Email me your permission to quote the logs from the cache and everyone can see exactly what the reviewers said and what you said.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Sven]

So, rather than help by giving me your permission to quote what both the reviewers and you said during the review[..] you instead accuse me of saying you are deceitful.

Perhaps you misread, here let me make it easier for you:

provide the details I've got nothing to hide

Looking forward to you telling everyone what information I'm not telling in these forum threads?

I've sat and read all my posts on both forums again, every single word I've said is 100% accurate.

[MBFace]

Graculus has asked you twice to email him regarding permission to post the information - have you actually done that?

[Graculus]

From my original email:

However if the cache owner gives me their permission by email I will post the information about why the cache cannot at the moment be published.

No, you've not done that. Why do I want your permission by email? As a reviewer I have strict rules of confidentiality about what information I can give out. I cannot quote what has been written on the cache page during the review process without your permission. I want it by email so I have it as a permanent record you gave it. I'll add it to the cache review history for future reference (this won't of course be visible once the cache is published).

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Graculus]

Clearly the cache owner isn't going to let me post the review comments which would explain why the cache cannot be published. So I am dropping out of this discussion and won't respond anymore.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Lord Boogie]

If you want something clarified by a GS representative then you ought to be asking GS direct via their forum, and not expecting them to jump in here (even though we have had a GS reviewer participate on this thread).

This I have done and gotten a response. However I am dismayed that a poster with the same name as a committee member decided to flame me for asking.

[Sven]

Clearly the cache owner isn't going to let me post the review comments.

Sorry the cache owner was away from his computer. (Blackpool actually, they've put a glass floor in the tower, pretty cool!)

Quite why you cannot just link to this thread for your archive of the permission is beyond me

I fear you run the risk of dragging this thread off topic, however I don't like being accused of hiding things. So in an effort to be transparent I've mapped out the reviewer conversations below, this is over a period of 11 days:

Hi

I'm just reviewing your cache which is fine however your cache is placed in an urban area (overlooked by the farmhouse) and due to a major security alert with a cache in a similar location a new guideline has been brought in by the Geocaching Association of Great Britain (GAGB) to cover caches in such locations so as to minimise the chance of more security alerts, particularly where there is a likelihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.
When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly. Your cache should be clearly labelled as a geocache with the cache GC number if it is large enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache. You may view the GAGB guidelines here (visit link)

[..]

Regards

Antheia

As I said in the description it's not near the private land. As I say in the description also it's an easy one (which is rare for us!) People will find it quickly.

Hi

I'm having another look at your cache and now I question your co ords, as when looking at the maps the cache is near the farmhouse gate, within feet of it, and on Weavers Lane, not a footpath.
(visit link)

Please can you check your co ords as in its current position it requires a clear and unambiguous hint as it is overlooked for me to be able to publish.


[..]
Regards

Antheia

It's on a bridlepath, it's not a road.

I've discussed your concerns on a geocaching forum. There seems to be some difference of opinion, can you clarify?

The local cachers seem to think the GAGB guidelines are....guidelines, not rules?

Furthermore there is no way this could be considered "urban" at all, it's in the middle of nowhere.

Wikipedia says urban is

"An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets."

I know the term 'urban' can be subject to vast interpretation but being overlooked by one farmhouse seems a little extreme, personally I think the word farmhouse hits the definition of rural on the head.


I'm confused.

Hello again,

I contacted the GAGB to clarify and "DrDick&Vick" who is a "committee member" said:

---

The guidlines are just that and not rules. I would suggest that you contact the relevant reviewer and explain just that to him/her.

---

Hope this helps?

Hi

Thank you for the notes and about your forum listings which I have now read. I don't know what the reviewer blacklist is either so cannot enlighten you but I do have a paid job, family and social life outside of volunteer reviewing and all of your caches have been looked at well within the 72 hours in which we try to review them and 1 has been published yesterday.

Now back to the cache -

****Guidelines are quite rightly so guidelines, and as I don't physically visit the locations I have to go on the maps that I have and your description and notes. You say
quote:
The cache is on the public bridlepath NOWHERE NEAR the farm gate or private lane.
but from the maps it is 24feet from the farm gate, hence why I am questioning your co ords and about the cache being overlooked and therefore looking suspicious especially when your description says
quote:
Muggles may be a problem from the farm house
. I do ask that
quote:
you can confirm it meets this guideline
not rule, and by adding a clue, it would enable cachers to minimise the suspicion especially being in front of the only property in the area and being overlooked.

****You say the cache is on public land so please add as a note to the reviewer the agency or association permission details of name and contact details as per the guidelines.
quote:
Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.
In the case of public property, contact the agency or association that manages the land to obtain permission.


*****I see on the forums that you are only in the UK for 6 months and the other 6 months in Florida so I need to ask how you intend to maintain your caches when you are out of the country. This is the relevant part of the cache maintenance guidelines: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings....It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan. If you have special circumstances, please describe your maintenance plan on your cache page. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page." You may view the full guideline here (visit link)

Before I can finish reviewing your cache, I need to know how it will be properly maintained for those 6 months.

[..]

Many thanks,

Antheia/Yvonne

Ok, I can confirm that, in my opinion, it meets the guideline.

The cache is on farm land, a public bridleway. I got permission from the farmer who was coupling a trailer onto his tractor. I suppose I'll have to go back and get his name, national insurance number and inside leg measurement for you, will I?

The caches are looked after whilst I am out of the country by my brother.

Hi

Due to the forum posts and your notes to the reviewer I am stepping down from reviewing your cache. It will be looked at in due course by another reviewer.

Regards

Antheia

Hi

I've been asked to step in and review this cache.

Reading the logs I see there have been a number of issues raised, some of which are still outstanding

1, There seems to be some confusion on exactly where your cache is hidden you say in the description "The cache is on the public bridlepath NOWHERE NEAR the farm gate or private lane." however looking at google earth the cache appears to be place opposite the farm please see (visit link) Can you confirm exactly where its hidden.

2, If the cache is in fact located as per the link above then its overlooked by the building so requires a hint to be added as per the GAGB guidelines (visit link)[1]

3, Antheia requested details of the person / agency giving permission for the placement. This information is still outstanding.

[..]
Regards

Andy
The Long Man

(at this point i added a hint, although i still disagree it's an "urban" location)

I've already indicated the cache is on the bridlepath on the horse gate.
I've already told you who i got permission from.

Hi

Thanks for your note however maybe I did not make myself clear when I asked you to confirm the location . Can you confirm the cache is hidden at the location indicated in the link in my last note. Regarding permission I know you said the farmer gave permission however when we request permission information we need at least the name of the person giving the permission.

If you can confirm the location and the permission information I will be able to finish reviewing your cache.

Regards

Andy
The Long Man

Hilarious.

i give up

well done

Where you see [..] I've stripped out Antheia's standard signature to save space, nothing else is hidden or omitted.

I'm a big boy, I can admit when i've done things wrong, and i have. Perhaps some of the sarcastic comments wont have helped but please understand this is after LOTS of caches being denied for trivial, petty and ultimately jobsworthy reasons. Hence my frustration, I put a lot of time into making awesome caches, and it's soul destroying when they're knocked back for no good reason.

I'm not about to travel all the way out there and try and find the farmers name only to find they'll come up with some other reason to reject it - I'm entirely sure why the permission issue came up after the initial three rejections?

[1] GAGB guidelines only say if a location is overlooked by houses. Mine was barely overlooked by a couple of windows of a single house.

See here for a impartial third parties view.

hi-ho hi-ho and it's offtopic we go.....

[Sven]

I'd welcome clarification on your comment Graculus:

I'll tell you why I am not responding to subject of this thread. The cache in question is being discussed on the EMCache forum as well as here. In both threads the reviewers are being of accused of bias and blacklisting cache owners. I've read all the review logs on the cache in question. I know what has been said by the cache owner and reviewer. Not all the information is being provided in either forum thread......

What information did I hide?

[Lord Boogie]

Can we have a comment now? From what I can see there are faults on both sides. Does look like the goal posts have moved to me though.

[Sven]

Whilst we're spiralling out of control into offtopic land:



The cache, for those interested, is here. In this "urban" location, the only house for 2kms in every direction.

Weavers lane is a bridlepath, no vehicular rights.

[t.a.folk]

Appears urban ( for want of a better word) to us by virtue that it is very close to a building with windows ( in this instance an occupied farm house, by the looks of it) that appear to be in line of sight of the cache .

We have seen caches in the built up residential and industrial areas of Poole,Bournemouth and Southampton etc that are not overlooked as much as this intended one .

Just the opinion of a couple of cachers who often seem to be out of sync with the majority. :lol:

[The Gaggle]

Thanks for filling in my lunch hour with this amusing thread!!! :lol:

:cheers:

[Sven]

Appears urban ( for want of a better word) to us

Umm, it's not urban, not even close farmhouse is the exact opposite of the word.

due to a major security alert with a cache in a similar location a new guideline has been brought in

Similar location?

Population of Wetherby: 111,55
Population of Farmhouse: 4

[uktim]

Umm, it's not urban, not even close farmhouse is the exact opposite of the word.



Similar location?

Population of Wetherby: 111,55
Population of Farmhouse: 4

I'm left wondering why you've chosen to place it so close on a house in a rural area.

Do you have permission from the owner of the house?

[Lord Boogie]

Nor strictly true Dave, if you remember one of my big arguments with Michael LaPaglia (which contributed largely to my resignation) was his insistance that there were no such things as UK specific guidelines and GSP guidlelines and only GSP guidelines had to be followed. This was during a protracted and sometimes quite heated discussion about DSW caches.

One of the things that has been a pleasant and refreshing surprise (but only in some ways) in recent months has been the seeming acceptance of GSP that the UK reviewers can now create their own rules (as they are not and never have been really simply guidelines have they ?)

Not intending any criticism here but wanting to set the record straight.

Cheers,:cheers:

DaveD

This would be an accurate statement given the official response from GroundSpeak in a thread I started on their forum.
https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/in...post&p=4846595

Sums it up nicely there that the GAGB are now a recognised rule set, sorry guidelines. To be used fast and loose using "judgement"

[*geocass*]

Looking at the piccie, I'd say I could probably understand why the reviewers would think it could fall under the "urban guideline" umbrella and one that would need specific permission. It does seem like anyone looking out of the farmhouse window would see you rustling in the hedges outside of their house. Just a personal thing, but if I looked at the satellite view before attempting the cache I would probably be put off visiting it because I would be worried that I'd look suspicious rummaging outside of the house unless the cache description said something along the lines of "Permission has been obtained from the occupants overlooking farmhouse". From re-reading the GAGB guidelines it looks like the word "Urban" is only used as the title for the guideline and not actually mentioned in the guideline text itself I think the important term is not "Urban", but "Overlooked location".

I wonder if refering to the guideline as "Urban and Overlooked locations" would be clearer to all?

As I said it may seem like a suspicious location from the satellite image, but I'm sure in actual fact if you visit the site you will realise that it's nothing like that. However, the reviewers obviously can't do that for every cache placement so they have to use what they can to make a judgement. GAGB guidelines aside, before the bomb scare I wouldn't be surprised if a reviewer had questioned the cache placement because of the way the satellite images make it seem very overlooked. I guess the "urban" guideline is just used now to back this up.

[markandlynn]

This is probably a better picture it also shows that the "farm" is in fact an industrial unit.
This information was gleaned from this thread on another forum
http://www.emcache.com/index.php/top....html#msg16948

[Ve8]

Can we have a comment now? From what I can see there are faults on both sides. Does look like the goal posts have moved to me though.

[markandlynn]

Clearly the cache owner isn't going to let me post the review comments which would explain why the cache cannot be published. So I am dropping out of this discussion and won't respond anymore.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Pity perhaps if Chris is made aware that there was no response because the OP was AFK he will step back in to this discussion.

[Sven]

Wow.

I had a listing unrelated to this post archived much to my bafflement.

A few moments later I had an email from Sandy.

The email reads thus:

Dear Steve,

I am informing you that I have archived one of your cache listings (GC33VK2) due to the following behaviors:

a) you posted review notes publicly rather than addressing a matter of permission

I posted reviewer notes publically (in this thread only) after requests from a reviewer?!?!

b) you enabled the logging of note on an unpublished cache

100% Untrue. There is a flaw in the geocaching website that enables cachers to post notes to unpublished caches. How can I enable logging to an unpublished cache exactly?

c) you posted the coordinates of the unpublished cache on another cache and asked for comments

Indeed I did, I couldn't find anywhere where this might be against any rules (or hidden guidelines!)

This type of behavior is underhanded, inappropriate and not good for the game of geocaching.

What? Asking people to visit a cache that i have permission for? *gasp* God forbid that anyone actually gets a little bit of enjoyment out of my hard work!!!

When cachers attend locations without appropriate permission it can cause damage to the game, particularly in the UK where permission issues are a delicate matter. Volunteers - both for Groundspeak and for geocaching associations - work very hard with land managers and local authorities to ensure the longevity of the game. When you thumb your nose at volunteers who are there to serve the community and the game, it is grossly disappointing.

Who exactly says I don't have permission? I have full permission to place 4:1 and 4:2, indeed all my caches!

Please consider this a warning against this type of behavior in future. Undermining the efforts of our volunteers, who are themselves highly experienced and knowledgeable geocachers, is not permitted. It will result in site suspension.

Should you address these complaints, we may consider unarchiving that listing. It will need to undergo editing to remove that hidden waypoint and comments.

Sincerely,

Sandy

Quite why GC archived a cache when I've done nothing against any rules is beyond me.

I've got to admit I'm quite beyond being bothered with any of this.

I have 30 caches which has been live for ~three months.

Twenty six of these caches have two or more favourites.
Five of these caches have favourites in high double figures.
ALL of my caches have entertained more favourites than any other in the local area in the same timeframe.

This isn't relevant at all, but is this what groundspeak want? Alienating cachers who push boundries and create unique off the wall exciting and interesting caches?

I'm about three seconds away from archiving all of my caches.



Is it just me that finds this pathetic?

[Happy Humphrey]

That's appalling behaviour from Groundspeak. Absolutely appalling. The worst I've seen.
You were quite wrong to add the waypoint, but Groundspeak were quite wrong to archive the cache in a fit of pique. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Unfortunately it's pretty clear that Groundspeak would not be in the least bothered if the whole East Midlands region consisted of a few dull caches and some micros in hedges, as long as it stays quiet.

[DrDick&Vick]

Having read through the cache page I am at a loss as to why 'Sandy' has archived it. All that was required was a request for removal of the offending waypoint, the fact that there is not even an explanation, as to why they have dones this, for the benefit of other cachers to read.

[Ve8]

Originally Posted by Sandy
Dear Steve,

I am informing you that I have archived one of your cache listings (GC33VK2) due to the following behaviors:

a) you posted review notes publicly rather than addressing a matter of permission

This is by no means an accusation but it could perceived by some as entrapment. Graculus, were you aware that Groundspeak do not permit the posting of reviewer notes in public?

Looking at earlier posts some may see the above as "reviewer bashing", although I have great respect for the unpaid efforts of UK reviewers this should not make them immune from accountability.

Originally Posted by Sandy
b) you enabled the logging of note on an unpublished cache

I was the one who posted the note which equated to a found log along with an appeal to publish the cache, admittedly a little naughty but by a legitimate route all the same:
wap.geocaching.com > Log a cache > Login > Enter GC Code

I agree that Groundspeak have been heavy handed here, posting the waypoint was naughty but appropriate action (IMO) should have been to either remove the waypoint or Temp Disable and then request the CO to remove the waypoint.

[Happy Humphrey]

I agree that Groundspeak have been heavy handed here, posting the waypoint was naughty but appropriate action (IMO) should have been to either remove the waypoint or Temp Disable and then request the CO to remove the waypoint.

Yes; "Sledgehammer to crack a nut" is exactly the phrase here.

I'm now coming down in favour of agreeing with Sven that he's getting singled out for special treatment in the hope that he stops caching.

It's also pretty shabby to punish him for publishing here what Graculus was offering to publish. And accuse him of setting up a cache without permission, without any evidence that this is actually the case.

Sven could remove the waypoint and comment, of course, but will that be then end of the matter? I doubt it. I hope that he keeps the caches going, even if they have to be moved to another listing site.

[martybartfast]

Yes; "Sledgehammer to crack a nut" is exactly the phrase here.

I agree, it seems very heavy handed and unnecessary reaction to me.

[DrDick&Vick]

Email me your permission to quote the logs from the cache and everyone can see exactly what the reviewers said and what you said.

Chris
Graculus

I have snipped this from a previous posting in the thread.
Seeing as Graculus originally agreed to quote the owner/reviewer logs from the cache in question, I feel that he should now step in and ask/answer some questions as to why Groundspeak have penalised the cache owner for doing what he intended to do.

Please note that this is my own personal opinion.

[Sven]

I feel that he should now step in and ask/answer some questions

I noticed he was reading the thread yesterday but didn't comment. Perhaps he's too embarrassed to clarify what information I was hiding...because....I wasn't.

I'll gladly accept his apology if he does post though.

[dodgydaved]

That's appalling behaviour from Groundspeak. Absolutely appalling. The worst I've seen.
You were quite wrong to add the waypoint, but Groundspeak were quite wrong to archive the cache in a fit of pique. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's not very often that I take GSP's side but I will here.

As far as I can tell this is not a GSP reaction - but a local reviewer reaction.

We are often told that out reviewing team (How many is it now?) liaise with each other on a regular basis. I wonder if Sandy discussed this action with the rest of the team?

There is no doubt that the game has taken off exponentially (probably not a mathematically correct expression - but you know what I mean) in recent years, and there is no doubt that the team had to be increased in proportion. (I remember well the number of caches the three of us reviewed in the early days - especially the work load Dave took on when Peter and I recruited him - that number was minute compared to what I am told today's work load is.) Perhaps this has, inevitably, reduced the amount of time the reviewers can discuss problems with each other.

I sincerely hope that either the full facts of these problems become public knowledge and discussable, or that the reviewer concerned sees that they have possibly made an error of judgement, and rectifies it.

The reviewing team have a job that can be very difficult (know it, been there, done it, got the T-shirt [literally ], and bowed out.) I am not a reviewer knocker - but feel an grave injustice is being perpetrated here.

DaveD

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I'm not going to discuss the ins and outs of what has happened just make the following personal and non reviewer comments

Sven you were asked by Graculus to give him written Permission to post the Reviewer Notes, he would have also obtained written Permission off the 2 Reviewers who made them.

You did not obtain any sort of Permission off either Reviewer. So you did not have Permission to Post the Reviewer Notes. That is the difference, Graculus wanted written permission of all parties, and had not supplied you with Permission.

And again you have posted a Private email without the Senders consent. That alone is disrespectful. If someone did it to those who have commented in this topic, how many of them would consider it acceptable. But because it was sent by a Lackey it is?

Sorry do all Lackeys and Reviewers who send out emails to members, have to put a requirement at the bottom of the email, that it may not be shared without express consent? That is a sorry state of affairs for this community!

And I'm sorry but will Sven apologise for posting the Reviewer Notes, without Permission off the 2 Reviewers who made them? As Graculus did not give him permission, but simply asked for his Permission.

Dave-Mancunian Pyrocacher

If my post does not end in Deci, it is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!



Ok now as a Groundspeak Site Volunteer

If you read my posts, you will find that Reviewers are held highly accountable by Groundspeak. I've made it clear that I personally within the last 12 months have received a sanction off Groundspeak. For a action deemed not suitable off a Site Volunteer Representing Groundspeak. Because of that sanction, I personally took actions to insure I did not repeat the actions I was properly sanctioned for.

Sandy as a Groundspeak Employee, is held accountable by Her employee's Groundspeak. Just like every member of the community, who is a employee of a company, whose held accountable to their employers.

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Dave Sandy is a Lackey, a Groundspeak Employee. Not a Site Volunteer.

Her position is

Community Relations Manager
Groundspeak Inc.

In the chain of command, she is above The Volunteer Program Manager. A position filled by Jenn when you were a Reviewer.

Jenn being successfully promoted to a different part of Groundspeak.

Deci

[Sven]

Permission

These aren't state secrets, it's not someone's banking information or medical history....It's a few details about a game.

I've never heard anything so daft....

What have you got to hide?

[dodgydaved]

Dave Sandy is a Lackey, a Groundspeak Employee. Not a Site Volunteer.

Her position is

Community Relations Manager
Groundspeak Inc.

In the chain of command, she is above The Volunteer Program Manager. A position filled by Jenn when you were a Reviewer.

Jenn being successfully promoted to a different part of Groundspeak.

Deci

Point taken, in that case was there any consultation between the local team and GSP, and if so why was it not possible to resolve this in a more appropriate and even handed manner - Andy's sledge hammer / walnut analogy does now seem relevant.......

[markandlynn]

do all Lackeys and Reviewers who send out emails to members, have to put a requirement at the bottom of the email, that it may not be shared without express consent?

Yes you probably do , you work for a company albiet unpaid, the rules are (nowdays) pretty clear on email and private correspondence (eg a chat rooms) on disclaimers.


With GSP's privacy policy.
The correspondence on the cache page may fall under

COPYRIGHT. All materials on the site are copyrighted and are protected under federal law, as well as international treaties and the copyright laws of other countries. Groundspeak's materials may not be reproduced, copied, distributed, adapted, displayed, edited, published, transmitted, or downloaded in any way without Groundspeak's express written permission

In light of this incident perhaps GC should consider having clear guidelines and disclaimers for cache page and email correspondence, forgive me if this allready exists as i cant locate it.

Id also add that "you appologise" and no "YOU appologise" is not the way to progress this heated but interesting discussion opcorn:

[Ve8]

Graculus wanted written permission of all parties, and had not supplied you with Permission.

The above reasoning seems fair enough but I'd like to question why this was not made clear BEFORE the comments were brought into the public domain.

This would have been a good time:

From my original email:
No, you've not done that. Why do I want your permission by email? As a reviewer I have strict rules of confidentiality about what information I can give out. I cannot quote what has been written on the cache page during the review process without your permission. I want it by email so I have it as a permanent record you gave it. I'll add it to the cache review history for future reference (this won't of course be visible once the cache is published).

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

My bold.

[Sven]

I think all this should now clearly highlight there is an ongoing campaign of problems being created by certain groundspeak employees and volunteers just to wind me up.

Another example of this was when I last had an email from Sandy threatening to ban we from geocaching entirely if I didn't remove a video from youtube. The video was linked to from the forums and she alleged it contained certain spoiler information.

Linking to spoiler information from GS is against the terms of service. Now instead of simply removing the link from the forums I was bullied and threatened into removing the video.

Much like now, instead of removing the waypoint (or asking me to) I suffer the entire cache being archived without the chance to resolve the issue - surely a temp disable would have sufficed?

All this just because I dare question a reviewer!

hmy:

Course there is no blacklist, right?

[Lord Boogie]

Clearly the cache owner isn't going to let me post the review comments which would explain why the cache cannot be published. So I am dropping out of this discussion and won't respond anymore.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

So, in this post it is inferred that the only obstacle to publication is Sven. It is clear that Graculus has been either clever to entrap Sven or was stupid not to seek permission from the reviewers before ranting that Sven was holding up the show.

Fess up now, repent ye sinners

[Sven]

Even though I have removed the offending waypoint from my listing Sandy says she still will not unarchive my cache because:

You have not addressed the actions you have taken with any sort of substance. The cache will remain archived.

If anyone has a time machine I can borrow to fix points "a" and "b" that she addressed in her email I'll be most grateful, thanks.

Why even bother saying if I fixed things that she'd unarchive it? *groan*

[Lord Boogie]

I think Sandy is asking, in Ministry of Truth style, for you to rewrite history. You are now required to cover up for the failings of groundspeak and others. What is clear now is there is an obvious vendetta against you that is playing out before us all. And Groundspeak don't like it because they are being ratted out.

Suppose I am on this black list now.

[Happy Humphrey]

Sven could remove the waypoint and comment, of course, but will that be then end of the matter? I doubt it.

As predicted!

I fail to see what is now wrong with cache "P4:2 Moorgreen < 8" http://coord.info/GC33VK2. Perhaps if a neutral, off-duty, anonymous reviewer could point out the problem by posting here, I feel sure that Sven will be happy to fix it, and I'll withdraw these comments.

But if it's archived as a "lesson to us all not to misbehave" (as it seems), I suggest that someone needs to grow up. It would seem ironic that this all started with someone being accused by Groundspeak of not following guidelines to the letter, and ends with an action by Groundspeak that appears to have no basis in any guidelines or publicly-available policies.

So that you realise that I'm not sticking my oar in for no reason, the cache is on tomorrow's to-do list as I'm playing golf nearby and intend to clear up my DNFs on the series on the way back, and (hopefully) continue a bit further. As long as I'm not suffering from heatstroke by then (29C here today).

[markandlynn]

Even though I have removed the offending waypoint from my listing Sandy says she still will not unarchive my cache because:

You have not addressed the actions you have taken with any sort of substance.

She needs to clarify what that means.

The cyberstalking across non groundspeak controlled or moderated forums, you tube and facebook is disturbing to say the least.

[Sven]

The cyberstalking across non groundspeak controlled or moderated forums [..] is disturbing to say the least.

A reviewer picked up that I casually mentioned in this forum that I spend a lot of time in Florida and used this as grounds to deny one of my caches because I couldn't maintain it year round!

[DrDick&Vick]

Considering I live in Surrey but have caches in Cornwall, Somerset and Sussex I cannot see how that can be used as an argument.
I have named cachers in each area who maintain my caches there when I am at home or away.
Whenever I submit a cache in any area except home I always submit the name of the local cacher who will be doing the maintainance and I have never been refused.

[Sven]

I've had a few further emails from Sandy who is still on the warpath.

Following the recent furore of me not obtaining permission for posting state secrets erm i mean details about the game, I thought it would be prudent for me to ask for permission to post here what she is writing.

Unsurprisingly permission for me to post details of the emails was denied.

This should surely beg the question, what do they have to hide?

[Happy Humphrey]

I'd guess that she wants you to remove the waypoint. It's still there, and if the cache was un-archived we'd see a puzzling dummy waypoint and some comments about your beef with gc.com.

Although I think you have a case for complaint, it might be best in the short term to get the waypoint removed altogether.

If I was a Groundspeak employee I wouldn't let the cache be reinstated in its current form.

Nice cache, by the way; I found it yesterday!

[Happy Humphrey]

The waypoint has now gone, so there's no need for the cache to remain archived.
I don't know whether Sandy will be in a position to get that done before Monday, but hopefully it will be back in action soon.

[Happy Humphrey]

Cache now up and running again...

[Lord Boogie]

Sven, have you had an apology from Graculus for giving you the impression he had permission of the other two reviewers to post their log entries?

[Sven]

Sven, have you had an apology from Graculus for giving you the impression he had permission of the other two reviewers to post their log entries?

Of course, I got it at the same time as his apology for his spurious allegations that I'd hidden relevant information...

[Sven]

Turns out you're not allowed to question reviewers on the reviewer process!

I've been banned from geocaching.com for one month for two reasons:

1) "My behaviour towards the local reviewer was not in keeping with what we expect from an affiliate".

2) I choose to document my geocaching experiences via my geocachespoilers youtube vlog. Turns out someone doesn't like 'spoiler' videos and has complained and they're demanding I remove content from my channel.

Course, there is no blacklist. Right?