PDA

View Full Version : Proposed GAGB Guidelines



paul.blitz
9th January 2004, 11:02 PM
I have now finished editing the proposed GAGB Guidelines (along with some "author's notes") which the committee have had a chance to comment on & help edit.

The guidelines are amazingly like the Draft HCC Guidelines, which are listed in this site.... but you will note that ALL the guidelines use the word "should".... which is only right, as they are NOT rules, but guidelines.

You'll find the Proposed Guidelines HERE (http://homepages.enterprise.net/paul0blitz/GAGB/guidelines.htm)... the author's notes are at the bottom.

As explained in the guidelines, they have been written for several purposes:

- as a set of suggested guidelines for presentation to landowners
- as a starting point for those landowners who wish to add their own “local” guidelines
- as a “best practice” for those placing / seeking caches

As with the proposed constitution, we would like your feedback over the next week, and then we'll run a poll for 7 days from next Friday to vote on whether you want to accept the guidelines: a simple majority of those voting will be needed to accept the guidelines.... although we hope EVERYONE will vote in favour!

If you have any comments, please make them as constructive as possible.


Paul Blitz
on behalf of the GAGB Committee

Icenians
9th January 2004, 11:11 PM
Sorry this has nothing to do with this topic but I don't see any other way to do this. (I get told I don't havew rights).

As GAGB don't represent Navicache I'd like like to give up my membership of the gagb, no gripe with gagb I just doon't play the game anymore, can someone at committee level remove my login.

thanks

Kev (Icenians)

Muggle
10th January 2004, 01:14 AM
Pretty good. It is a pleasing development that the elected committee obviously see geocachers in the UK as being responsible adults.

The only change I would suggest is that guidleine two is changed from:

Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable for an unaccompanied child to find should be placed in a cache.

to:
2) Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable should be placed in a cache. Caches should be placed in a way that they will not be accidentally found by non-geocachers.

As has been pointed out before lots of "acceptable" items would be dangerous to unaccompanied children. ie. sharp pointed pencils.

paul.blitz
10th January 2004, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Icenians@Jan 9 2004, 11:11 PM
As GAGB don't represent Navicache I'd like like to give up my membership of the gagb, no gripe with gagb I just doon't play the game anymore, can someone at committee level remove my login.

GAGB doesn't represent Navicache... nor does it represent Geocaching.com.

I believe that we represent people in the UK who go out geocaching, no matter WHICH listing site they choose to use. But, because GC.com is FAR larger than Navicache in terms of users, logs etc, then GC.com tends to get "more coverage".

If you wish to leave the GAGB, then no problems, I'll get your account removed.


Paul

paul.blitz
10th January 2004, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Muggle@Jan 10 2004, 01:14 AM

The only change I would suggest is that guidleine two is changed from:

Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable for an unaccompanied child to find should be placed in a cache.

to:
2) Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable should be placed in a cache. Caches should be placed in a way that they will not be accidentally found by non-geocachers.


That bit you added ("Caches should be placed in a way that they will not be accidentally found by non-geocachers") is pretty common sense... but so are most of the guidelines! I think it would actually make a lot of sense as a completely separate guideline.


As for the first bit, you added....

As has been pointed out before lots of "acceptable" items would be dangerous to unaccompanied children. ie. sharp pointed pencils

The problem with using the cut down phrase "Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable should be placed in a cache" is that there is no guidance on what *is* actually safe / acceptable... like who to? By stating "unaccompanied children" I think it becomes a lot clearer.

How do others feel about the "pointed sticks"?


Paul

Muggle
10th January 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 10 2004, 01:53 AM


The problem with using the cut down phrase "Only items that would be deemed safe and acceptable should be placed in a cache" is that there is no guidance on what *is* actually safe / acceptable... like who to? By stating "unaccompanied children" I think it becomes a lot clearer.

How do others feel about the "pointed sticks"?


Paul
Well as long as no one comes at you brandishing a banana, you should be OK.

The point I was trying to make was how would an unaccompanied child find a cache in the first place?

I think what you are trying to get at is "don't put anything in a cache that you wouldn't like YOUR child to find"
It's just a matter of getting the wording right.

Icenians
10th January 2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz+Jan 10 2004, 01:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Jan 10 2004, 01:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Jan 9 2004, 11:11 PM
As GAGB don&#39;t represent Navicache I&#39;d like like to give up my membership of the gagb, no gripe with gagb I just doon&#39;t play the game anymore, can someone at committee level remove my login.

GAGB doesn&#39;t represent Navicache... nor does it represent Geocaching.com.

I believe that we represent people in the UK who go out geocaching, no matter WHICH listing site they choose to use. But, because GC.com is FAR larger than Navicache in terms of users, logs etc, then GC.com tends to get "more coverage".

If you wish to leave the GAGB, then no problems, I&#39;ll get your account removed.


Paul [/b][/quote]
Sorry Paul,

I wasn&#39;t trying to raise any points or start anything. I simply want to cancel my membership with GAGB as it doesn&#39;t represent me :)

I can&#39;t seem to send an email via individual accounts privately and the contact page for the site still has details for &#39;secret seven&#39; and none of the current committee.

Kev

paul.blitz
10th January 2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Icenians@Jan 10 2004, 12:57 PM
......I simply want to cancel my membership with GAGB as it doesn&#39;t represent me :)

Kev
Ok, Kev, no problems with that at all... no one / no organisation can ever hope to represent EVERYONE, can it?

Good luck with caching / whatever other hobbies you are involved with&#33;

Paul

NattyBooshka
10th January 2004, 05:31 PM
Is the GAGB committee proposing that members MUST follow all of these guidelines when placing a cache? Should members having a cache that contravines these guidelines archive them? Would existing caches be exempt from these guidelines? (as per GC.com)

Would failure to comply with all of the guidelines above be grounds for expulsion of a member from the association?

We&#39;re not suggesting that we disagree with any of the above guidelines, but are aware of several if not many caches that do not follow them.

We see where it said guidelines not rules, but when it come to negociating with landowners it will always help to be seen to be practising what you preach.

Are we suggesting that caches following the above guidelines state that fact on their listing page? Maybe someone could come up with a funky logo?&#33;

Well done though... sensible set of guidelines, thanks to the committee for their hardwork
Cheers
Emily & Neil

BugznElm&#39;r
10th January 2004, 08:27 PM
"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be no visual sign of disturbance."

None at all ... Native Americans might be able to manage this but 90% of the caches we find we find because of sign.

I suggest changing to:

"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be minimal visual sign of disturbance left."

Otherwise, good stuff&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
10th January 2004, 09:31 PM
"unaccompanied child" - this is vague. What age? 36 months? 5 years? 16 years? 18 years? This is important with respect to toys. Clarification please ...

BugznElm&#39;r
10th January 2004, 09:52 PM
Will the notes form part of the guidelines? If not, what are their purpose? If it is to clarify then they need integrating into the guidelines.

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 10 2004, 09:31 PM
"unaccompanied child" - this is vague. What age? 36 months? 5 years? 16 years? 18 years? This is important with respect to toys. Clarification please ...
Think of statements like:

"children should always hold their parent&#39;s hands"
"children should be accompanied to and from school"
"children should be seen and not heard" :-)
"it is not safe for a child to ride a bike in a (busy) road"

In all cases, it is impossible to state the age for which this applies.. a lot depends on the child. Anyone under 18 could be deemd "a child"... they are certainly legally "a minor". I don&#39;t think most the above would apply to most kids over 11.

So, at what age would you let a child:
- walk along the road in town with you WITHOUT holding your hand?
- cross a road?
- walk / run on ahead by several hundred metres when out for a country walk?
- dive into bushes to seek out a cache?
- open a cache without your direct supervision?

Again, a lot DOES depend on the individual child.

So, what are the worst things that could end up in a cache, that we are trying to protect the kids from:
- a pack of condoms (oh, the embarassment of explaining THAT to a 7 year old&#33;)
- a spliff (yes, I HAVE seen one)
- a sharp, unprotected knife, or similar
- a gas cigarette lighter, that has been damaged by frost
- a broken glass bottle
- alcohol
- some sort of liquid which, if drunk, might cause illness (even a mouldy bottle of bubbles)


Then consider that some teenagers DO go caching alone (Michael is 14, Rob is 15: they have both SET a cache alone). I would certainly not want them to find any alcohol - maybe not so worried about the condoms.

Finally, consider the cache being found by some non-caching teenagers. They are 16, have been drinking some cider in the woods, and find a penknife with a 3 inch blade on, and start to muck around, and hurt someone. Or have that dodgy ciggy ligher burns them as it finally cracks & explodes whilst they are playing with it.


So, please help me summarise all that (and more) in a simple sentence&#33;

Yes, the "unaccompanied child *is* vague.... heck, so are many of the guidelines. I don&#39;t know what the answer is. Suggestions ARE very welcome though&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Paul

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 10 2004, 09:52 PM
Will the notes form part of the guidelines? If not, what are their purpose? If it is to clarify then they need integrating into the guidelines.
The notes will NOT be part of the guidelines... I simply wrote them to help people understand the background behind why the various guidelines are there...

(BTW: please remember that I wasn&#39;t involved in the writing of the original HCC guidelines)


Paul

Nick&Ali
11th January 2004, 02:43 PM
I have no problem with any of them - all of which are commonsense.

As stated they are guidelines rather than rules, so I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any point in having every eventuallity covered - exactly the point Paul is making above. It&#39;s not as if anyone needs to find loopholes with guidelines.....................

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 01:51 PM
Yes, the "unaccompanied child *is* vague.... heck, so are many of the guidelines. I don&#39;t know what the answer is. Suggestions ARE very welcome though&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Problem is if the guidelines can&#39;t be clear now, who in the future becomes the judge of unacceptable items in caches? :ph34r:

Perhaps rather than concentrate on unaccompanied children, perhaps the guidelines should encourage cachers to exercise care and discretion when placing items in a cache. I agree, knives, alcohol and drugs should be banned but beyond that it is darn difficult to have a catch all statement.

Remember too that the outdoors itself presents dangers to unaccompanied child (adults too) ... and many times (especially mountain/near water) the cache location presents more danger to the unaccompanied child than the contents does.

Why not a list of banned items and work from there?

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by nicktinknick@Jan 11 2004, 02:43 PM
I have no problem with any of them - all of which are commonsense.

As stated they are guidelines rather than rules, so I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any point in having every eventuallity covered - exactly the point Paul is making above. It&#39;s not as if anyone needs to find loopholes with guidelines.....................
Go back and take a look over both this forum and the GC.com forums on debates on matches and knives and you&#39;ll see why clarity is needed&#33;

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 10 2004, 08:27 PM
"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be no visual sign of disturbance."

None at all ... Native Americans might be able to manage this but 90% of the caches we find we find because of sign.

I suggest changing to:

"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be minimal visual sign of disturbance left."

Otherwise, good stuff&#33;
But why not strive for the perfect situation?

If there *is* any disturbance near a cache, then it makes it a LOT more likely that it will get found by non-cachers.

Talking in a library used to be forbidden, but there were always a few whispers. Once you allow "quiet talking" you then get (like I saw in the library yesterday) people on their mobiles talking, and disturbing others.

If the guidelines say "minimal disturbance", then you&#39;ll end up with non-minimal disturbance. In many instances, landowners will not accept that.


Paul

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz+Jan 11 2004, 03:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Jan 11 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 10 2004, 08:27 PM
"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be no visual sign of disturbance."

None at all ... Native Americans might be able to manage this but 90% of the caches we find we find because of sign.

I suggest changing to:

"12) When leaving the cache site, after hiding or placing a cache, there should be minimal visual sign of disturbance left."

Otherwise, good stuff&#33;
But why not strive for the perfect situation?

If there *is* any disturbance near a cache, then it makes it a LOT more likely that it will get found by non-cachers.

Talking in a library used to be forbidden, but there were always a few whispers. Once you allow "quiet talking" you then get (like I saw in the library yesterday) people on their mobiles talking, and disturbing others.

If the guidelines say "minimal disturbance", then you&#39;ll end up with non-minimal disturbance. In many instances, landowners will not accept that.


Paul [/b][/quote]
I agree with you in principal ... however not talking mearly involves keeping ones mouth shut. That&#39;s easy. A family moving to a cache, doing their business and moving out of the area and being expected not to leave sign is unrealistic. I think that it is unrealistic to expect that of a cacher(s) and unrealistic to promise that to the landowner. Heck, if they have the public on site anyway they wil understand this anyway. To all other landowners you are promising too much with that statement.

Case in point ... we were at a cache the other day placed in a peat bog where we were sinking up to our knees almost on a public footpath ... how could I cross and recross that path and leave no sign?

My suggestion was mearly to tone it down to a more "take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints" statement. If an area is so sensitive that it should not be subject to any visual disturbance it should not have a cache there.

Just my opinion ...

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Jan 11 2004, 02:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Jan 11 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 01:51 PM
Yes, the "unaccompanied child *is* vague.... heck, so are many of the guidelines. I don&#39;t know what the answer is. Suggestions ARE very welcome though&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Problem is if the guidelines can&#39;t be clear now, who in the future becomes the judge of unacceptable items in caches? :ph34r:

Perhaps rather than concentrate on unaccompanied children, perhaps the guidelines should encourage cachers to exercise care and discretion when placing items in a cache. I agree, knives, alcohol and drugs should be banned but beyond that it is darn difficult to have a catch all statement.

Remember too that the outdoors itself presents dangers to unaccompanied child (adults too) ... and many times (especially mountain/near water) the cache location presents more danger to the unaccompanied child than the contents does.

Why not a list of banned items and work from there? [/b][/quote]
(I hope you don&#39;t mind my editting your original message, to make the quoting correct&#33;)

Guidelines don&#39;t NEED a judge.. they are just guidelines.

Now, to get your cache ALSO listed, on GC.com, Navicache.com etc, and approved by some landowners, you may HAVE to *adhere to* some of the guidelines. But that&#39;s nowt to do with GAGB.

I think the "unaccompanied children" came about as there was need for a "yardstick" to help define what sort of things should be ok for a cache... in other words, it was included to get around the very problem you TOO are trying to get around&#33;

As for "banned items"... you can&#39;t BAN items in a GUIDELINE&#33;

Hey, let me give an example... I place a cache on the top of Mt Everest... it&#39;s a 5/5, and there is NO WAY I would ever expect an "unaccompanied child" to find the cache. In that case, I would feel quite justified in ignoring the guideline, and put non-child-safe items in my cache... some "banned items" could be very useful items in such a cache&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Who is the judge in the future? The members of the GAGB, who can change the guidelines. The Cache Approvers?


Paul

paul.blitz
11th January 2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jan 11 2004, 03:30 PM
A family moving to a cache, doing their business and moving out of the area and being expected not to leave sign is unrealistic.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect that of a cacher(s) and unrealistic to promise that to the landowner. Heck, if they have the public on site anyway they will understand this anyway. To all other landowners you are promising too much with that statement.

I guess it comes down to the difference between "picking a spot" and "scraping all your skin off"&#33;&#33;

The "take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints" phrase is indeed a good one.


Some caches I have visited, I have, with no effort, been able to leave no trace, other than might be caused by any normal "passer by". I am also aware that sometimes that has actually been VERY difficult (try clambering up a muddy bank to find a cache without leaving footprints or tracks&#33; But I did at least *try* to "cover my tracks". It&#39;s even more difficult when there is still some snow around&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;).

My *aim*, where I can, is to leave no hint that I was there, both to reduce the risk of future plundering, but also to make it more fun for the next cacher. Failing that, I&#39;ll try & cause suitable "distraction" (eg place a few footprints elswhere too).

If visiting a site DOES cause obvious visible evidence, then one might argue that the cache is actually not located in a good place.


paul

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 05:34 PM
Dupe post ... sorry&#33;

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 05:42 PM
I agree, it&#39;s hard to BAN items in guidelines, but then look at the other items in the guidelines

"3) No cache should be placed ..."

"5) No items of food or drink ..."

"6) Caches should not ..."

"10) No caches should be of a commercial nature ..."

Strong, clear wording - everyone knows where they stand. Perhaps this is a wording issue and that these would be better forming part of a code of conduct for members rather than guidelines (which normally suggest how people behave).

My problem with this part (unaccompanied child) and the "no visual sign of disturbance" part is that these are vague and misleading to both landowners and cachers.

Anyway, if no one else sees a problem, then I&#39;m happy to give them a go and see how things go :)

BugznElm&#39;r
11th January 2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jan 11 2004, 05:34 PM
If visiting a site DOES cause obvious visible evidence, then one might argue that the cache is actually not located in a good place.

Absolutely&#33; Geocaching is, by and large, a low impact outdoor activity. In urban areas or heavily visited places the impact on the environment is negligible. In other areas the effect is greater.

I still feel that if we have to go pretending to landowners that geocachers will have no effect on the area at all, some will ultimately be upset that it is not so. This could reflect negatively on geocaching.

Again, if no one else has any thoughts, I&#39;ll let this one rest.

Paul G0TLG
12th January 2004, 08:43 AM
These all look good to me - as for the children / unaccompanied children etc bit, I don&#39;t think we can do much better than we&#39;ve got already.

I&#39;m sure that most of us, once we&#39;ve had the idea put in our mind that children may find our caches, will think about what&#39;s right to put in and what isn&#39;t, and the guidelines DO stimulate that kind of thought.

Paul

The Wobbly Club
13th January 2004, 04:25 PM
We think the guidlines are OK as originaly written. Do you really need to spell everything out. We are after all supposed to be adults.

Well done Paul

GeocacheJoe
13th January 2004, 06:11 PM
I&#39;m new to this so please forgive me. All this discussion about guidelines and so on seems odd.
But, having said that, why have this site if the guidelines it produces are not clear, spelling out what we need to know, what we should do and don&#39;t do? I&#39;ve registered over at geocacheing.com and there they have rules about what should and shopuldn&#39;t be in caches and most of them and clear and straightforward. Why mince words over here in the UK? Why not give everyone a clear idea of what&#39;s expected? If there are going to be rules of guidelines, why not make them clear so we all know where we stand?
I have to admit that I am confused over some items in caches. How am I to judge what other children might be able to do with something i place in the box? Common sense is sone thing but I do feel that I might be held responsible for something I did&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Am I responsible for what unacommpanied children might do with a cache box that I place or somethign I put into it?
Sorry for the length of the post but I do feel confused as to which set of rules I should be playing this game to. Those on the geocaching website of those here? Who can hold me responsible?&#33;

Thanks&#33;

GJ

MCL
14th January 2004, 01:02 AM
GJ above makes a good point we he asks who can hold us responsible, and it&#39;s one of those grey area questions that we have not until now thought about. I guess ultimately we are all morally responsible for the items we leave in caches and where we place them, but there is no (as yet) caching police force who are going to come knocking on your door at midnight to cart you off for punishment.

What *does* often happen is that anything generally considered against the guidelines that a subsequent cacher may come across when visiting runs the risk of being removed by that cacher for "safety" reasons, because thats just the kind of people we are.

A cache reported to the Geocache.COM approvers as being widely deviant from *their* guidelines is likely to get suspended from the listings until it is fixed, but *our* guidelines on here are not so much for the benefit of people coming into the sport who want to know what they can or cannot do (although they do have that purposed as well) but are probably more useful as a tool we can show UK landowners to demonstrate to them the way we behave in this country. (GC.COM&#39;s guidelines of course reflect the fact that it is a global game) They are pretty similar to the existing GC.COM ones, but with a UK specific twist.

It is probably safe to say that adherence to our guidelines will make it a pretty safe bet that you are also not in breach of any of the GC.COM ones either. It is a matter of historical record that the GC.COM ones are older.

paul.blitz
14th January 2004, 01:25 AM
...but *our* guidelines on here are not so much for the benefit of people coming into the sport who want to know what they can or cannot do (although they do have that purposed as well) but are probably more useful as a tool we can show UK landowners to demonstrate to them the way we behave in this country.
I think you are probably right there..... To be honest, I would say that the majority of cachers try to adhere to the guidelines as best they can. The single-most "breach" is probably plastic bags.... but in SOME places (as in where the cache is hidden, not the general locale) a bag WILL be ok.


....be pretty similar to the existing GC.COM ones, but with a UK specific twist.

It is probably safe to say that adherence to our guidelines will make it a pretty safe bet that you are also not in breach of any of the GC.COM ones either. It is a matter of historical record that the GC.COM ones are older.
I have exchanged informal emails with the UK approvers: the feeling is that they WOULD take the GAGB guidelines "into account" when approving a cache.... but they would not refuse a cache for just failing to meet one of the GAGB guidelines.... they would certainly draw the cachers attention to the guidelines though(suggesting that the "error" ought to be fixed)....

(in other words, a very "common sense" approach, taking them for what they are: guidelines)


paul

paul.blitz
15th January 2004, 08:17 PM
I&#39;ve just modified the guidelines to include the suggested:

"Caches should be placed in a way that they will not be accidentally found by non-geocachers."

The author&#39;s notes do NOT form part of the document, so you&#39;re not voting on that bit&#33;

I&#39;ll launch the poll tomorrow&#33;


Paul

paul.blitz
16th January 2004, 09:32 PM
The vote for accepting the proposed guidelines has started, over in the "polls" area.

The voting will end at (or very soon after) 9pm next Friday (23rd Jan 2004). If there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes (ie >50%) then the guidelines will become the formal GAGB Guidelines.

Please note: if you view the results of the poll before voting, you will NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE&#33;


Anone who joined before last friday should be able to vote. If you have a problem, let me know (either here or by email) and I&#39;ll try & find out what the problem is.


Happy Voting&#33;


Paul
GAGB Committee

paul.blitz
23rd January 2004, 09:59 PM
Well, the voting has closed, and as you can probably see by now, by a 32 - 2 vote, the new guidelines are accepted. Not only have we made a majority, the majority exceeded both 2/3, and 3/4 &#33;

Thanks to everyone who made comments, and also to all who voted&#33;

Yes, maybe they are not perfect, and not always attainable, but they are something we can try hard to achieve&#33;


See you all on Sunday at the Winchester Late Xmas Cache Bash 2004&#33;


paul

(This topic will be un-pinned after the weekend)