Comments on: Breaking your own rules

By: searchjaunt

searchjaunt — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:43:06 +0000

@ErikaJean We’ve clearly a different taste about things

By: searchjaunt

searchjaunt — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:40:22 +0000

@ oojiflip Since the cache isn’t a mystery, the cache should be located at the given coordinates. At least, that’s the rule that the approvers (should) follow. I doubt that any coordinate would address the exact location of this cache and thus no GPS can be used, which is against the rules too.

By: oojiflip

oojiflip — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:02:42 +0000

If these two caches really cause so much grief why not just ignore them?

The ISS cache may not technically be in Kazakhstan but unless you were planning on hiding your own cache within 520ft of the posted coordinates does it really matter? And even if you were I don’t suppose a reviewer is really going to refuse your reasoning for why the ISS cache doesn’t break the proximity rules – it’s more than 520 feet above your cache for starters.

By: searchjaunt

searchjaunt — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:14:01 +0000

@sTeamTraen Even if they are permitted, there is no reason for having these commercial caches. A normal geocacher can’t afford these commercial services.

By: sTeamTraen

sTeamTraen — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:04:42 +0000

@LilLuckyClover: those caches were published by Iryshe and Bryan. That´s two-thirds of the founders and shareholders of Groundspeak. I think you´ll find that they understand the rules of the game fairly well.

The reviewers and cache placers work to a set of rules. Groundspeak can waive any or all of those rules, any time they like. This is not a democracy.

As for \commercial\: Groundspeak has no problem with commercial caches, as long as you either pay for the space, or get their prior approval. Regular reviewers cannot give that approval. But there is no rule that says \there can be no commercial caches\.

By: searchjaunt

searchjaunt — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:12:38 +0000

Locking a cache isn’t sufficient. They should be archived.

By: LilLuckyClover

LilLuckyClover — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:23:33 +0000

@LilLuckyClover Just checked in on these caches, and they have been locked by GC.com…. some reviewers don’t seem to understand the rules of the game. Clearly the Vents cache was commercial due to advertising a business. And the other was impossible to get…. This is more a black eye to the reviewers more than anything!

By: ErikaJean

ErikaJean — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:08:32 +0000

They’ve been there long enough and haven’t been a problem. It’s all in good fun in my opinion…. even though they are definitely not cachable and do not meet guidelines.