camping events

[nobbynobbs]

There is a general feeling, within the event organising community, that the "rule" saying that it is not possible to insist on camping to claim the smiley for a camping event is a localised rule that bears no standing in the worldwide geocaching community.

There is a well argued debate going on on the gc forums.
https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/in...owtopic=289239

As the role of the GAGB is to stand up for the UK cachers in their discussions with GC and the reviewers I thought it only right and fair to raise this matter on here so that you were aware of it and have the ability and opportunity to decide what your measured response will be

I am happy to raise the issue with both the reviewers and groundspeak.

I would however like to let this thread run for a few days to get a feel for its support.

So please speak up all.

[martybartfast]

I didn't get involved in any of the previous discussions on the frog site, but I do agree that it should be alowable to create a camping event which requires an attendee to camp.

I don't buy the argument that this excludes some people because, as had been said before, various other events & caches already exclude certain people for various reasons.

As Groundspeak have demonstrated that compulsory camping events _can_ be published, then the GAGB should approach the UK reviewers to request that they also allow such events in the UK.

So thumbs up from me :socool:

[mollyjak]

I have already contributed to the thread mentioned

[Palujia]

Been on GS about this too - Agree that people should be able to organise pure "camping" events so that one should camp rather than just visit . For all the reasons stated on the other thread !

[DrDick&Vick]

My comments have been made over on GS but I am all in favour of having the ability to specify that attendees must camp/caravan overnight to claim a smiley.

[Clipper247]

If it's a camping event, you should have to camp to claim the smiley.

[Predictable Bob]

It seems perfectly reasonable to require people to camp to get the smiley !

If they're concerned about it excluding people will they set a maximum height of 4' for all caches so that I can reach them ?

[border caz]

I agree Bob.

A camping event is a camping event so you should camp!

A pub event is an event in a pub - so you have to go in the pub.

A museum event is an event in a museum - so you have to go in the museum.

An event up a mountain is an event up a mountain, so you have to go up the mountain.

What's the difference?

[Jacaru]

I've usually put on a side event over a camping weekend for people who don't want to, or can't camp. They visit the camp, attend the meet and greet and get a smiley. It's up to to the campers whether they log the side event or not. That way at least none campers have felt part of the weekend and can still log it.

[munkiboi182]

are there any camping events coming up soon? (preferably in the east) or do they just tend to be in the summer. im a four season camper and love warming my cockles on a blazing fire whilst watching sunrise on a frosty morning. perhaps someone could organise one. i would but i find it hard to organise my sock draw.

[Andalusite]

I agree Bob.

A camping event is a camping event so you should camp!

A pub event is an event in a pub - so you have to go in the pub.

A museum event is an event in a museum - so you have to go in the museum.

An event up a mountain is an event up a mountain, so you have to go up the mountain.

What's the difference?

The difference is that three of your examples require going somewhere (and would be in agreement with the guidelines) whilst one requires doing something (and would not be in line with the guidelines).


Guess which one is the odd one out...

[DrDick&Vick]

Surely getting to the event at the top of a mountain would involve you doing something 'Climbing a mountain' springs to mind and not everybody can or wants do that same as not everybody can or wants to camp.

[Andalusite]

Surely getting to the event at the top of a mountain would involve you doing something 'Climbing a mountain' springs to mind and not everybody can or wants do that same as not everybody can or wants to camp.

Getting anywhere entails doing something but that is irrelevant.

The point is that the analogy was flawed as like was not being compared with like.

If the analogy had been comparing like with like then either the first example would have said "an event in a field where some people happen to be camping" (allowed) or else the second one would have been "an event in a pub where you must drink 'x' number of pints" (sadly not allowed).

[border caz]

The difference is that three of your examples require going somewhere (and would be in agreement with the guidelines) whilst one requires doing something (and would not be in line with the guidelines).


Guess which one is the odd one out...

So all camping events are in my back garden so I don't have to go anywhere?

And I don't have to do anything to get myself up a mountain or into a pub?

Now I am even more confused!

[border caz]

Getting anywhere entails doing something but that is irrelevant.

The point is that the analogy was flawed as like was not being compared with like.

If the analogy had been comparing like with like then either the first example would have said "an event in a field where some people happen to be camping" (allowed) or else the second one would have been "an event in a pub where you must drink 'x' number of pints" (sadly not allowed).

And presumably the last one should have said "an event at the top of a mountain where some people happen to have climbed up there".

[DrDick&Vick]

Quoted from Sandy's comment on the GS forums:
Generally speaking, those who attend an event - even part of an event - should be able to log it. Nowhere in our current logging guidelines do we require the signing of a logbook to log an attended at a cache event.

Which in theory means that if arrive at a meet venue between the specified times and take one step inside the door and then leave I can log the event as attended as I was there although I did not participate.

If an when I organise a camping event the main part of the event will be from 06.00 to 07.30 on the Sunday morning which is when the log book will be out. Anybody who has not camped and is prepared to travel at that un godly hour will be more than welcome to clam an attended smilie.

[border caz]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

It's all about participation - any attendees should be prepared to take part in whatever the event is about.

You wouldn't go to a CITO event and sit on a bench watching for a short time then go home, or go to an event up a mountain and wait at the bottom, or go to a pub event and stick your nose round the door for a few minutes and clear off.
So if you go to a camping event then you should camp, as that is what the event is about.

[DrDick&Vick]

BUT unfortunately we are never going to win so we have to play around the rules as I have suggested.

[keehotee]

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

It's all about participation - any attendees should be prepared to take part in whatever the event is about.

You wouldn't go to a CITO event and sit on a bench watching for a short time then go home, or go to an event up a mountain and wait at the bottom, or go to a pub event and stick your nose round the door for a few minutes and clear off.

Well actually.....I've seen people do just that at CITO's. And I've seen people turn up to a pub event, grab a copy of the sheet for any caches put out for the event then leave again. I've even seen people turn up at camping events the day after the event, meet friends at the gate, then turn around and go caching
They all, as far as I know, logged attended and got their smiley.
Just because you wouldn't do that at an event, don't assume that everybody plays the game your way......

[markandlynn]

I see this quite simply, insisting on you camping is an ALR so its not allowed.
Holding an event on a campsite that does not allow day visitors is not an ALR.
To get the smiley all you need to do is attend the event on the day and at the time stated on the event page, if you can get there. It is then about the ability to get there for said date and time rather than having to camp.

Question why is it so important to force people to "camp" what if my house backed onto the campsite ? or i lived on the house over the road from the entrance ?

[Andalusite]

If an when I organise a camping event the main part of the event will be from 06.00 to 07.30 on the Sunday morning which is when the log book will be out. Anybody who has not camped and is prepared to travel at that un godly hour will be more than welcome to clam an attended smilie.

It would be interesting to see what appeals would make of such a transparent attempt to circumvent the guidelines when it as archived prior to publication by the local reviewer...although I very much doubt that they would give you a decision that would make you happy...

[border caz]

I see this quite simply, insisting on you camping is an ALR so its not allowed.
Holding an event on a campsite that does not allow day visitors is not an ALR.
To get the smiley all you need to do is attend the event on the day and at the time stated on the event page, if you can get there. It is then about the ability to get there for said date and time rather than having to camp.

Question why is it so important to force people to "camp" what if my house backed onto the campsite ? or i lived on the house over the road from the entrance ?

I don't want to force people to camp. But I do think it is unfair that we are not allowed to have camping events at many campsites because the non-campers would whinge that they were being excluded - when this is clearly not true - they are excluding themselves by not wanting to camp - that is their choice. But why should we suffer because of their choice?

If the campsite backed on to my house or was over the road and I wanted to attend the event I would take my tent and pitch it on the campsite. If I chose not to do that I wouldn't feel I was being excluded from the event - it would be my choice and I would suffer any consequences.

[markandlynn]

My mistake i thought event caches were about turning up and attending them.

I will also add that refusing an event cache on a campsite because it has a "no day visitors" policy is wrong as thats not the organisers fault it's just coincidence with thier choice of favourite campsite.

If someone proves resourcefull enough to bypass the "day visitors" rule by using a PF that passes through the campsite then well done to them.

[keehotee]

I don't want to force people to camp. But I do think it is unfair that we are not allowed to have camping events at many campsites because the non-campers would whinge that they were being excluded - when this is clearly not true - they are excluding themselves by not wanting to camp - that is their choice. But why should we suffer because of their choice?

So if an event were held in a pub that only admitted people buying food, that would be OK would it?
What about the people living over the road that had dinner at home? Or anybody not liking the food on the menu? Or people that just couldn't afford to eat out that night?

Or........how about spending a little more time and finding a pub that welcomed everybody, instead?

[DrDick&Vick]

It would be interesting to see what appeals would make of such a transparent attempt to circumvent the guidelines when it as archived prior to publication by the local reviewer...although I very much doubt that they would give you a decision that would make you happy...

I did say 'If & When' as I have absolutely no intention of organising a camping event.
As far as it being archived, where in the guidelines does it say that an event has to be held at a specific time or are the GS guidelines ones that can adjusted to fit the cause of those who can't be there at a set time.
People who have to work can't attend midday flash events, are they then permitted to appeal under the same grounds.

Not being difficult as I support the UK reviewers 100%, just trying to find an approach that could work.

[Mrs Blorenge]

My understanding of it...

As far as Groundspeak is concerned there are no such things as Pub events, Museum events, Picnic events, Beach events, Camping events.

They are all simply Geocaching events - a date, time and location where geocachers can gather/socialise/talk geocaching/trackables/other stuff for as short/long a time as they wish. They are not even required to sign a log book.
There may be food/drink/museum exhibits/grass/sandwiches/sand/tents at the various locations but geocachers are not required to experience any of those things in order to log that they "attended". They are simply required to be there (date/time/location) to qualified as "attended".

All the other stuff may be interesting/enjoyable extras for some geocachers some of the time... but not a requirement for logging the event.

[DrDick&Vick]

As it seems that there is no requirement to sign a log book and it probably wont be possible for an event organiser to chat to everybody who attends, you don't really have to even bother to turn up. Just check the attended logs and then do an attended log for yourself simply stating 'Nice to see xxxxxx & zzzzzzz there' and there you have it another smilie.
Great way to save fuel money, nice way to encourage a bit of armchair event logging. It seems that you can even do this with CITO events.
In theory I suppose the request to 'drop a slip of paper with your caching name in the bucket' I have seen for flash events is an ALR as all you have to do is just turn up in the area or not as you choose.

[Alan White]

I have no interest in either camping or events so my opinion on them isn't relevant.

However, I would just point out that what you're discussing isn't an event issue it's a listing issue, and there are other listing sites which may have different views on the subject.

[DrDick&Vick]

It would be interesting to see what appeals would make of such a transparent attempt to circumvent the guidelines when it as archived prior to publication by the local reviewer...although I very much doubt that they would give you a decision that would make you happy...

This event has been quoted over on the GS forum:
Camping Sauvage 2012 GC386PO, and this is a quote from the event page:
Cet event aura lieu de 22h le 11 février 2012 jusqu'à 7h au matin du 12 février 2012 où la signature du log book ainsi que la photo officielle de groupe auront lieu.
Which translates to this
This event will take place from February 11, 2012 22h until 7am on the morning of February 12, 2012 when signing the log book and the official photo group will take place.

So I have to ask is it one rule for the UK & one for others?

As I say I am not trying to be awkward but I do like equality all round.

[mollyjak]

This event has been quoted over on the GS forum:
Camping Sauvage 2012 GC386PO, and this is a quote from the event page:
Cet event aura lieu de 22h le 11 février 2012 jusqu'à 7h au matin du 12 février 2012 où la signature du log book ainsi que la photo officielle de groupe auront lieu.
Which translates to this
This event will take place from February 11, 2012 22h until 7am on the morning of February 12, 2012 when signing the log book and the official photo group will take place.

So I have to ask is it one rule for the UK & one for others?

As I say I am not trying to be awkward but I do like equality all round.

An interesting point and I look forward to any reply

[dodgydaved]

An interesting point and I look forward to any reply

Or could it be that UK reviewers are rather more strict with GSP guidelines/rules than some other reviewers?

[nobbynobbs]

Well the update that I have is that whilst Sandy (the lackey) is aware of the disparity and the various interpretation of the rules the company feel that open to all means that in the specific case of camping events everyone has to be able to attend, they don't appear to have much to say about the cost for day visitors so that concession that I argued for and got last year is standing.

I've hit a brick wall really, the company appears to not be prepared to see that other events exclude people just as much as camping only events would. It's there ball and they can say how the game is played but fair rules or at least fairly applied rules is all we can hope for.

I have suggested to Sandy that the quoted canadian event would offer a good basis for how listings could be worded, there is nothing to say that people cant turn up at 7am and sign the log book but it's worded to encourage camping, I've yet to get a reply to that as it would seem a happy medium.

I've had red duster confirm that the UK reviewers do not stand up for UK cachers and only serve the company, this does bring into question their motives which as far as I can tell is purely for kudos and ego trips. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner but I actually feel pity for them, doing all the work for free to keep Jeremy in money and all they get is adulation from the sheep.

The reviewers have said that they expect the GAGB to be standing up for the rights of UK cachers. Now it could be that this is happening behind closed doors but please don't tell me that is the case because that only makes you look as remote and aloof as the reviewers. Where is the GAGB voice standing up against the disparities and inequalities in this and many other matters?

This is not a personal attack as several committee members have replied on the threads and voiced their opinions loudly. The organisation in itself is not doing anything. I'm sorry if this is incorrect and that things are happening that the rest of us know nothing about but that is not the point.

You carry a small enough mandate as it is. The percentage of the caching population that actually visit let alone vote is so small that it's hardly worth noting. This is as much to do with you not making yourself heard loudly as anything. OR are we still protecting the special relationship that we have with groundspeak?
For those not privy to that snippet, I was told that we have this special relationship and that we mustn't upset that....I think you're kidding yourselves.


Make some noise. If not about the camping, at least about the dominance that the reviewers have in this country, a distinct inequality between us and the rest of the world because certain reviewers feel it is their god given right to do so....

[uktim]

Calm down Nobby the reviewers work hard at the role they have been
assigned. They are there to review caches NOT to make up rules.

Camping is NOT an event it is an accomodation choice. Arbitrary consumer choices should not be used as ALRs.

[border caz]

Camping is not an accomodation choice - it is a lifestyle choice.

I don't camp rather than holiday in a hotel or B & B - I camp because it is my hobby, in the same way as I cache - because that is another hobby I have.

Some people have hobbies like fell walking and have events where people have to walk a fell to get there - I still don't see why camping is treated differently in the UK.

[uktim]

Camping is not an accomodation choice - it is a lifestyle choice.

I don't camp rather than holiday in a hotel or B & B - I camp because it is my hobby, in the same way as I cache - because that is another hobby I have.

Some people have hobbies like fell walking and have events where people have to walk a fell to get there - I still don't see why camping is treated differently in the UK.

Is it really necessary to merge all your hobbies into a single event?

Why not hold an event and say that I will be camping at xxx if anyone would like to join me?

Why not enjoy each of your hobbies for what they are instead of trying to coerce others to join you when you camp?

[border caz]

Is it really necessary to merge all your hobbies into a single event? Why not - others do - events up mountains for the fell walkers, CAMRA enthusiasts have events in pubs with real ales on tap, etc.

Why not hold an event and say that I will be camping at xxx if anyone would like to join me? Isn't that a camping event?

Why not enjoy each of your hobbies for what they are instead of trying to coerce others to join you when you camp?

I've never tried to coerce anyone into doing anything they don't want to, camping events are open to all, the same as all other events are, it is the individual's choice whether or not to attend. (Not that I've ever organised one)

[uktim]

I've never tried to coerce anyone into doing anything they don't want to, camping events are open to all, the same as all other events are, it is the individual's choice whether or not to attend. (Not that I've ever organised one)

But sleeping in a tent is not an event!

[border caz]

Who said I do it in a tent?

[uktim]

Who said I do it in a tent?

It's even less of an event if it's a tuppaware tent

[border caz]

Aha - you've seen my tupperware tent then - I can squeeze 6 people in there (seated) - that must be enough for an event!

[amberel]

Well the update that I have is that whilst Sandy (the lackey) is aware of the disparity and the various interpretation of the rules the company feel that open to all means that in the specific case of camping events everyone has to be able to attend, they don't appear to have much to say about the cost for day visitors so that concession that I argued for and got last year is standing.

I've hit a brick wall really, the company appears to not be prepared to see that other events exclude people just as much as camping only events would. It's there ball and they can say how the game is played but fair rules or at least fairly applied rules is all we can hope for.

I have suggested to Sandy that the quoted canadian event would offer a good basis for how listings could be worded, there is nothing to say that people cant turn up at 7am and sign the log book but it's worded to encourage camping, I've yet to get a reply to that as it would seem a happy medium.

I've had red duster confirm that the UK reviewers do not stand up for UK cachers and only serve the company, this does bring into question their motives which as far as I can tell is purely for kudos and ego trips. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner but I actually feel pity for them, doing all the work for free to keep Jeremy in money and all they get is adulation from the sheep.

The reviewers have said that they expect the GAGB to be standing up for the rights of UK cachers. Now it could be that this is happening behind closed doors but please don't tell me that is the case because that only makes you look as remote and aloof as the reviewers. Where is the GAGB voice standing up against the disparities and inequalities in this and many other matters?

This is not a personal attack as several committee members have replied on the threads and voiced their opinions loudly. The organisation in itself is not doing anything. I'm sorry if this is incorrect and that things are happening that the rest of us know nothing about but that is not the point.

You carry a small enough mandate as it is. The percentage of the caching population that actually visit let alone vote is so small that it's hardly worth noting. This is as much to do with you not making yourself heard loudly as anything. OR are we still protecting the special relationship that we have with groundspeak?
For those not privy to that snippet, I was told that we have this special relationship and that we mustn't upset that....I think you're kidding yourselves.

Make some noise. If not about the camping, at least about the dominance that the reviewers have in this country, a distinct inequality between us and the rest of the world because certain reviewers feel it is their god given right to do so....

Nobby, I believe your rant has had exactly the opposite effect to that you wanted, as I warned it probably would.

A while ago, in a different thread, I differentiated between a) removing the requirement to make provision for non-campers, and b) deliberately excluding non-campers. There is a chasm between these two goals, and while I support the first I oppose the second.

There is no such thing as a camping event, there are just events. Events are intended as a means for people to meet. Not to go caching, or camping, or anything else, just to meet - anything else is incidental. It is reasonable to arrange an event at a campsite. It is not reasonable to expect the organiser to be required to make special provision for non-campers. But if it happens that non-campers may attend, because the site permits visitors, then going out of your way to exclude them goes right against the purpose of events. Furthermore it casts you in a very poor light as cliquey and snobbish.

And we need to make a second differentiation - that between attending the event and getting the smiley for logging attended. You seem to be obsessed with ideas such as weird timing of the event in order to prevent non-campers from getting an attended smiley. Get over it, the smiley is of zero importance. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

In the other thread I've seen it suggested that the reason for excluding non-campers is to encourage people to camp. Get real. Quite apart from that goal being nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of an event, the effect is the opposite - why should anyone want to become a camper if they are such a snooty, cliquey group. I have a campervan and might have attended a camping event in the future. That is considerably less likely after seeing the unattractive character of those who wish to exclude non-campers from events. And maybe the camping clique would have wanted to exclude a campervan anyway?

Finally, I'm pleased that the GAGB do not "stand up" for your narrow, selfish views as I suspect they do not represent the majority opinion.

Rgds, Andy

[nobbynobbs]

Thanks for having an opinion regardless of whether it agrees with me or not.

You are missing many points and misconstrue many things but I see little point in arguing the case.

The end result of this is that there will be an across the board rule given out by groundspeak so that ALL events will operate under the same set of guidelines. ALL reviewers will be having to apply those rules to ALL of those events.

We will no longer be told that one set of rules applies to one event and one set to another. One set to one country and one set to another. We will also not be lied to that this matter has been discussed with groundspeak but that they do not understand what it is like to go camping or how we do events in this country.
So yes I did think that the organisation that is meant to represent the cachers of this country might have shown an interest in reviewing and having an input.
It's actually very interesting that the discussion is going on right now at groundspeak, presumably with the reviewers as well and probably being represented by people who go to events and organise events in America. MAybe the GAGB would like to tell us which of the committee are involved?....

[Andalusite]

Discussions are currently taking place between the UK reviewers and Groundspeak (and have been for some time).

We hope to be able to make an announcement soon.

[nobbynobbs]

http://support.groundspeak.com//inde...kb.page&id=338

The new guidelines. Fair sensible and applicable to everyone. I think this hits all the requirements that everyone wanted.

Thank you to all involved and all those who helped make this happen and I hope that I can shake the hand of anyone I irritated.

[border caz]

Good result, thanks to our reviewers for sorting this out. :socool: