GAGB Guideline not met, cache denied?

[Sven]

I'm confused - although it doesn't take much :)

I've had a cache denied because:



Log Date: 9/8/2011
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 https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/

I am temporarily disabling your cache so you can confirm it meets this guideline. When you're ready for me to review the cache again either enable it from the cache page (Navigation box on the top right) and add any information or questions in the comments box or if you are editing the cache tick the box 'Yes this listing is active' and add any information in the 'Note to reviewer' box at the bottom. This will bring it back to the top of the queue for review.

Regards



Now it's in the middle of the wilderness. There's one farmhouse nearby but besides that there's nothing. It's certainly not an urban area - the nearest village is about 2km's away.

Wikipedia says the definition of 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.


Also some people on another forum tell me the GAGB guildelines are.....guildelines, not rules governing the placement of caches.

Do they *have* to be adhered to? I cannot find anything in the GC.com terms that tell me I must follow them, as it happens I'd read them, but didn't realise they formed part of the rules??

There is point 3 below



Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

1.Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.
2.A geocache may be disabled or archived.
3.Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement.
4.Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.


I guess that means GAGB? What other local organisations must I follow the guildelines of? I assume there are local geocaching clubs to me, forums etc, do they make stipulations also, where do I find a list of ALL my local rules?

[DrDick&Vick]

The guidlines are just that and not rules. I would suggest that you contact the relevant reviewer and explain just that to him/her. It might also be an idea to explain to him/her the location settings and the fact that there are very few buildings there.

[Mongoose39uk]

The guidelines are not rules. If a reviewer chooses to treat them as rules that is down to their conscience.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

As stated the cache location is overlooked by the Farmhouse in fact it's right in front of it. And whilst there is not Google Street View for that location, looking at the location on Google Satellite, it looks very close to if not directly opposite a Gateway to the property.

Groundspeak's UK Reviewers have used the GAGB Guidelines as Local Guidelines since before I became a Reviewer. And as I've been a Reviewer for just over 5 years (and I'm currently the longest serving UK Reviewer) and the people who recruited me, had used the GAGB Guidelines from when they became Reviewers (around 2003) . The GAGB Guidelines have been used as Local Guidelines for around 8 years.

Also I noticed that you have not mentioned Landowner Permission in your post. Yet you have confirmed in that post that you have read GC's Cache Placement Guidelines.


You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission (http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304#permission) before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.Also will you please explain why you felt a need to immediately discuss a unpublished cache in a Public forum, without even giving the Reviewer a chance to even work with you over this cache placement? Because you did not even give the reviewer any chance to discuss this with you, before posting a copy of the Reviewer note here.

One of the roles of GC's Reviewers is to work with Cache Owners to get their cache submissions published. To do that, they have to be given the chance to work with the cache owner.

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[Sven]

errr I came here for some help? And I'm now more confused, I've got some people saying they're only guidelines yet you're saying the reviewers use them as rule.

I just want some clarification of this that's all.

[Mongoose39uk]

I have to say even as a committee member of the GAGB ia m confused. We list guidelines and yet it seems they are being treated as rules?

[martybartfast]

errr I came here for some help? And I'm now more confused, I've got some people saying they're only guidelines yet you're saying the reviewers use them as rule.

I just want some clarification of this that's all.


These are guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules, which gives the reviewers some room for movement when applying them, if they wish and they think it's appropriate. While your proposed cache isn't in an 'urban' environment it seems to be clearly overlooked by a property, and in fact a cacher hanging round outside a house in the middle of nowhere could potentially attract a lot more suspicion than a cacher hanging around in the middle of a city centre.



Also will you please explain why you felt a need to immediately discuss a unpublished cache in a Public forum, without even giving the Reviewer a chance to even work with you over this cache placement?


Personally I don't think the OP has done anything wrong. [S]He's been told the cache contravenes the GAGB guidelines and has then come to the GAGB for advice, I don't see a problem with them clarifying the situation before approaching the reviewer to query the rejection.

[Sven]

Thanks for the feedback, I live half the year in the UK and half in Florida. How do I know about any local Florida rules (or guidelines?!) that I must follow whilst I'm there? We've not cached in Florida yet, we're still relative newbies!

Is there a list of all the areas of the world, and all the local clubs that make extra local rules?

Also would there be any more local rules that must be adhered to? For instance county or city wide besides the GAGB?

Thanks guys

[martybartfast]

Also would there be any more local rules that must be adhered to? For instance county or city wide besides the GAGB?


It can be a bit confusing, on the whole the additional guidelines for the UK are basically enshrined in the GAGB guidelines, but there are other rules set by landowners such as the Forestry Commission, and Woodland Trust where additional rules are in place but you'd find out about those when applying to the landowner for permission (many of these can also be found under the individual land owner agreements at https://www.gagb.org.uk/land-agreements.php )

There are also local rules in the US, such as not placing caches near railway lines, but I wouldn't know where to go to find them.

[Sven]

Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?

My cache rough location is here (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.052049,-1.266947&spn=0.019012,0.052314&sll=53.053184,-1.266732&sspn=0.019011,0.052314&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=15) which as I said isn't "urban" at all. I'm not sure how the reviewer can say because of the recent Wetherby incident they're requiring all caches have a "clear and unambiguous clue" yet the same reviewer published this cache (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC33KRW) yesterday and there is no clear clue at all, and that's in the middle of an urban street!? (http://g.co/maps/hejva)

:confused: :dunno:

[MBFace]

Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?

My cache rough location is here (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.052049,-1.266947&spn=0.019012,0.052314&sll=53.053184,-1.266732&sspn=0.019011,0.052314&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=15) which as I said isn't "urban" at all. I'm not sure how the reviewer can say because of the recent Wetherby incident they're requiring all caches have a "clear and unambiguous clue" yet the same reviewer published this cache (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC33KRW) yesterday and there is no clear clue at all, and that's in the middle of an urban street!? (http://g.co/maps/hejva)

:confused: :dunno:

Have you asked the reviewer?

Personally I can't see anything wrong with the cache. There's something that matches the clue clearly visible on Google Street View extremely close to the coordinates.

[dodgydaved]

Groundspeak's UK Reviewers have used the GAGB Guidelines as Local Guidelines since before I became a Reviewer. And as I've been a Reviewer for just over 5 years (and I'm currently the longest serving UK Reviewer) and the people who recruited me, had used the GAGB Guidelines from when they became Reviewers (around 2003) . The GAGB Guidelines have been used as Local Guidelines for around 8 years.


Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com



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::beer:

DaveD

[The Wombles]

I just wanted to clarify that GAGB has guidelines and it's up to the Reviewers of listing sites on how these should be applied to individual caches.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?



I'd be interested in hearing His explanation about a "reviewers blacklist", caches are Reviewed according to the Guidelines the GC ones, and the GAGB ones which we use as Local Guidelines.

Any time we mistreat a member in any way, that person is welcome to make a Official Complaint to Groundspeak. Who will fairly investigate the complaint and take any appropriate action they deem appropriate. From a Warning to the Final and Ultimate Sanction of Removal as a Groundspeak Volunteer.

If anyone wishes to doubt the above statement, someone** made a Official Complaint against me*, to Groundspeak. After they had investigated, I received a "Official Warning" off Groundspeak. So Groundspeak's Reviewers are held to a high standard at all times.

Maybe the Admins of the Other Listing Sites, would care to explain how their held accountable.


Deci

*within the last 12 months
**The persons Identity remains confidential between that person and Groundspeak.

[bobbinz]

I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.

I know that some people have not had caches published for weeks, whilst other have been placed and published within that week! It can be very irritating for those involved.

I am sure there is no official blacklist, but certainly reviewers still are real people and therefore have human opinions and may let them clout their judgement form time to time. We all do it! I think that is all the comment meant.

[bobbinz]

I know a lot of local cachers have quite strong views on others, and I to a certain degree reviewers could be the same

[Lord Boogie]

Deci, You seem way to quick to jump on this, as mentioned before he was referenced to the GAGB guidlines and was only asking for advice. Why have you been so adversarial in your comments from the off and tried to high-jack this thread? From your tone it made me think there is more to it.

I suppose I am black listed now as well?

Incidental what have other listing sites got to do with this are you saying "there can be only one" Mr Mccloud??

[Sven]

I'd be interested in hearing His explanation about a "reviewers blacklist", caches are Reviewed according to the Guidelines the GC ones, and the GAGB ones which we use as Local Guidelines.

A human run system is never infallible. Humans have feelings, they have prejudices and agendas.

Since I dared question her authority it seems my caches now take days rather than hours to be authorised (yet tens of others sail through at regular intervals) :blink: and I seem to get denied for the most jobworthy of reasons :dunno:

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.

I know that some people have not had caches published for weeks, whilst other have been placed and published within that week! It can be very irritating for those involved.

I am sure there is no official blacklist, but certainly reviewers still are real people and therefore have human opinions and may let them clout their judgement form time to time. We all do it! I think that is all the comment meant.

As someone whose Reviewed caches in East Midlands, I'd be interested to hear from those who have had to wait weeks to get a cache actioned. The only time I can think of a cache taking over a week to action is when it has been taken to the rest of the UK Reviewers for their opinion.

And I'm sorry but I do know exactly who Sven&Cup was referring to in regards to a Reviewer Black list, and exactly what as well. He's someone who is highly experienced not only as a Geocacher, but also in Geocaching Politics. He's someone who has the email address of one of Groundspeak's Founders (Owners), who would heavily advice anyone waiting weeks to get a cache published, to make a Formal Complaint to Groundspeak.

Sven&Cup your cache happens to be one that was referred to the rest of the UK Reviewers for their impute (and before anyone claims we are ganging up on him, caches get referred every day by all of us. We work very closely as a team)

Lord Boogie Sven&Cup was simply asked to confirm that his cache met the Urban Guidelines, which states


6 – Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood 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.
Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

The Bold is Mine, but is exactly what th Reviewer was referring to. Sven&Cup did not even attempt to discuss things with the Reviewer. Instead decided to post on 2 separate forums. So their was a breakdown of communication between the cache owner and Reviewer. Before there was even any attempt to resolve things.

As for other Cache Listings. If you'd taken the care to properly read my Post. You would have read the way Reviewers are held to account by Groundspeak. Since I was even open to admit I received a Official Warning off Groundspeak, after a Member made a Complaint which was upheld.

Was I wrong to as the Admins of Navicache, Terracaching, Opencaching.org,uk and also Garmins Opencaching.com how they are held to account when a complaint is made against them? Notice I've listed 4 separate and all independent of each other Listing Sites.

I know at least Admins for Opencaching.org.uk are Members of this forum.

Please do not quote this post, in part or whole off this forum

Deceangi

[Sven]

Sven&Cup did not even attempt to discuss things with the Reviewer. Instead decided to post on 2 separate forums. So their was a breakdown of communication between the cache owner and Reviewer. Before there was even any attempt to resolve things.

Sven&Cup sent responses to the reviewer before making any forum posts.

One might hope my confusion would be justified after it had to be explained to two committee members! How on earth is a newbie meant to interpret the redtape if its creators cannot?...

So sorry for trying not to waste valuable reviewer time and get my questions answered by those in the know first :confused:

It seemed wrong, it still seems wrong. I wanted a knowledgeable opinion.

[Lord Boogie]

Woah boy. Calm down and take a minute. Surely you can not take exception to new geocacher asking advice about guidelines from the people who wrote them?

Great you know people, so do I but as my wife reminds me does it mean I am right?

This is getting out of hand, I think you are way too defensive, don't take it bad because people don't act the way you want them.

Lets all chill out and stick to the point.

GAGB guidelines are now rules can this be confirmed by GS (Deci as you are the longest serving reviewer at the moment your call)

[Sven]

I think the problem here is the usual in many walks of life, give people a little authority and they like to use it.

Do you think it is in the spirit of the rules to deny a cache because it mentions the word "tupperware"?

I had one denied as it was clearly a "commercial advertisement" for tupperware!

*GASP*

What about mentioning a massive landmark like Ikea?

*GASP*

I understand why the rule is there, to prevent spam....

Do you think saying "the cache is in a tupperware container" is an advert? No of course not. Then it falls into the jobsworth category.

Sure, it might be the LETTER of the law but it's not the SPIRIT of the law.

What about denying a cache because I mentioned in a forum that I spend a lot of time out of the country?

I clarified that I had someone in place for this scenario when I'm not here...

So what about RE-denying the cache until I told the reviewer exactly who this person was?


Spirit vs Letter.

I'd say the letter is what might kill geocaching for some people, it killed it for me. I wont be submitting anymore caches for review in the East Midlands.

[martybartfast]

Do you think it is in the spirit of the rules to deny a cache because it mentions the word "tupperware"?

I had one denied as it was clearly a "commercial advertisement" for tupperware!

*GASP*

What about mentioning a massive landmark like Ikea?

*GASP*

I understand why the rule is there, to prevent spam....

Do you think saying "the cache is in a tupperware container" is an advert? No of course not. Then it falls into the jobsworth category.


I believe that it's GS who have very firm rules the commercial aspect and I don't think the reviewers have much room to manoeuvre on it and TBH I think it's the only way; if there's a moveable line then everyone will have their own idea of what can be mentioned and what can't and there would be perpetual arguments about it. With an absolute no mentioning of commercial products it's clear to everyone where the line is.




Sure, it might be the LETTER of the law but it's not the SPIRIT of the law.

What about denying a cache because I mentioned in a forum that I spend a lot of time out of the country?

I clarified that I had someone in place for this scenario when I'm not here...

So what about RE-denying the cache until I told the reviewer exactly who this person was?


Again I think this is a GS rule, which was brought in to stop people chucking caches down where they weren't going to be maintained, and seems reasonable to me.

[Mongoose39uk]

OK, some thoughts.

This may not have been the best guideline to use. It appears not to be urban. Of the top of my head and without the time to re read the GS guidelines (they do describe them as requirements, GAGB issues guidelines not requirements) I am sure there will be something about not placing a cache where it may cause distress.

Over the last month I have had 4 contacts from landowners (rural) complaining about caches that infringe on their privacy and/or the safe working of their land. One which also blocked access to their farm buildings by people parking on their drive.

Only one of these had a positive outcome with future support from the landowner.

I know this cost me both time and money to resolve it also cost reviewers time.

I am sure that all the reviewers are trying to do is prevent this sort of situation.

[Happy Humphrey]

I know that reviewers can't be expected to be perfect all the time, particularly when trying to fit in reviewing around a full-time job. I'm grateful that people volunteer for this unattractive but useful task.

But in this case, assuming that what Sven tells us us accurate and that the reviewer had the best of intentions, the mistake was that the reviewer did not list all the queries straight away after the first review; and make it quite clear what level of detail was required in the answers.

Sven was annoyed that after giving the reviewer the answer the listing was refused and another question asked. Perhaps this would be tolerable on one occasion, but I'd have thought that once the answer was given any further questions should have been listed along with the required detail level of answer.

For instance, if a reviewer has inside knowledge that you spend a lot of your time outside the area, then if he/she is concerned about cache maintenance the question should be whether you have a maintenance plan for when you're away. If the answer is "yes" then no further question is necessary; I don't see why the reviewer would then refuse the listing again and ask for the name of the person who is going to maintain it. After all, they can't check whether the name you give is authentic.

Then once the name has been given, it would be reasonable to expect the listing to go ahead, not to be refused again on the basis that you now need to reconfirm that permission has been granted. And if you reconfirm this, you'd then expect the listing to go ahead...and on it goes.

So in this case, the initial submission might have been refused; but the reviewer should have listed all the requirements in detail. Including that it's not good enough to submit a cache and say that you have a maintenance plan, you also have to give details of how this will work and who is covering. And that it's no good just saying that permission has been granted; the reviewer needs to know by whom exactly, along with a contact phone number. And also the reason that this particular cache has the extra requirements over and above the usual.

I emphasise that I'm not having a go at the respected reviewer in this case; I'm just assuming that mistakes were made (rather than that there's a campaign to drive Sven out of the sport), and that discussing them will help avoid this sort of thing from happening again.

[uktim]

GAGB guidelines are now rules can this be confirmed by GS (Deci as you are the longest serving reviewer at the moment your call)

I find it very hard to see how GAGB guidelines can be applied to anyone other than GAGB members. If you don't sign up to the GAGB you cannot be required to comply with their guidelines.

[Mongoose39uk]

I find it very hard to see how GAGB guidelines can be applied to anyone other than GAGB members. If you don't sign up to the GAGB you cannot be required to comply with their guidelines.

That's a easy one to answer for yourself by going and reading the groundspeak guidelines which points out that there may be additional local guidelines which the reviewer may require you to meet. If you want to list on their site you need to meet the requirements.

However as has been repeated several times, the GAGB produces guidelines not rules, not requirements.

From Groundspeaks getting started guide.....

Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements
Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.
A geocache may be disabled or archived.
Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement.
Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

[uktim]

That's a easy one to answer for yourself by going and reading the groundspeak guidelines which points out that there may be additional local guidelines which the reviewer may require you to meet. If you want to list on their site you need to meet the requirements.


I find it rather hard to believe that this was intended to create a situation where a few cachers set up an association and create guidelines that are imposed upon every other cacher in the country.

[Mongoose39uk]

That's a question for groundspeak not us.

Though I guess seeing as the reviewers from groundspeak contribute to them.........

Oh and some of the guidelines on there are ones which they requested, like the graveyard and memorial guidelines.

However this is about a specific situation not about the GAGB.

[Lord Boogie]

However this is about a specific situation not about the GAGB.

I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.

[Mongoose39uk]

I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.

Where pray tell have we (the committee) disagreed, if some of the reviewers from one listing site (there are several you know) choose to treat them as rules that is between them and their listing site.

Could you explain who the majority of cachers you refer to is. I only see a few people on here discussing this.

[Ve8]

Could you explain who the majority of cachers you refer to is. I only see a few people on here discussing this.

His Lordship of the Boogie was suggesting that the GAGB aim to represent the majority of cachers in the UK, that's quite a curious if not amusing response:applause:

[martybartfast]

I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.


I think you're confusing the two separate organisations.

GAGB publish guidelines, if GS choose to adopt those guidelines as hard rules then that's up to GS and not the GAGB. But then you say the reviewers appear to be cherry picking the rules, could this not be alternatively described as being flexible in applying the guidelines? (IMHO there's no scope for flexibility in rules but flexibility is inherent in the term guideline).

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).

[Lord Boogie]

But then you say the reviewers appear to be cherry picking the rules, could this not be alternatively described as being flexible in applying the guidelines? (IMHO there's no scope for flexibility in rules but flexibility is inherent in the term guideline).

You miss the point, exactly how are we (hiders of caches) supposed to know what the rules are if they keep changing them? Or one week decide that one guideline does not meet with their agenda? I assume you don't disagree that we should expect to be treated equally. I had, wrongly it seems, assumed that GAGB was representing the geocaching community. I also assume you do not disagree that for a listing site to use and discard the guidelines at whim and use the GAGB name as the whipping boy is wrong?

Let me just say this, I believe that the reviewers of all listing sites do an amazing job that helps to maintain standards. I had previously believed that the GAGB represented the geocaching community. I am doubting these two statements will remain unchanged.:dunno:

[Mongoose39uk]

You miss the point, exactly how are we (hiders of caches) supposed to know what the rules are if they keep changing them? Or one week decide that one guideline does not meet with their agenda? I assume you don't disagree that we should expect to be treated equally. I had, wrongly it seems, assumed that GAGB was representing the geocaching community. I also assume you do not disagree that for a listing site to use and discard the guidelines at whim and use the GAGB name as the whipping boy is wrong?

Let me just say this, I believe that the reviewers of all listing sites do an amazing job that helps to maintain standards. I had previously believed that the GAGB represented the geocaching community. I am doubting these two statements will remain unchanged.:dunno:

I believe it needs more clarification from the reviewers, however that does not make me or you the majority of cachers.

[Lord Boogie]

I believe it needs more clarification from the reviewers,

I am glad you agree:).


however that does not make me or you the majority of cachers.

I am not claiming to be the majority, nor am I saying you are. I am saying that GAGB represents the community. Guidelines being randomly applied as rules could affect the majority, minority or a single cacher; all of those "sets" belong to the community GAGB is supposed to represent. :confused: .

[Mongoose39uk]

You have a point of view, so do thousands of others they may not agree with you.

Please get evidence of a majority view before trying to tell me what to do.


I am not going to waste any more time on you.

[Sven]

You have a point of view, so do thousands of others they may not agree with you.

Please get evidence of a majority view before trying to tell me what to do.


I am not going to waste any more time on you.

I think, with respect, you're possibly missing his/her point.

As they say "GAGB represents the community".

Community==majority.

At least, that's how I read it....

[Mongoose39uk]

With respect, I am talking about the majority. Please try reading what I have said.

I don't see a majority of people raising this as an issue.

That does not however mean that I have not raised the issue elsewhere.

[Happy Humphrey]

I don't see this as an issue of whether or not Groundspeak are using GAGB guidelines as rules. So the thread is going off-topic.

Even if the first listing refusal was on the basis that the cache was subject to the GAGB Urban Cache guidelines, the issue was about why the cache was repeatedly refused, and details of permission and maintenance were later required when normally they aren't. And why they weren't required at first but were later insisted on.

As far as I can see it's about a particular case, not about GAGB guidelines. Although there is also an implied question about whether certain cachers' submissions are subject to "special treatment".

It looks like questions have been asked about this by the GAGB, and I would encourage their arbitration.

[bobbinz]

I think Happy Humphrey has hit it dead on there, well said.

[Lord Boogie]

I am not going to waste any more time on you.
I am glad, you feel confident there is no issue. I am sure other members of GAGB are also pleased that any issue they raise must first be ratified before the GAGB committee can waste time on them.

With out an open debate though, how else would we know others have the same issues?

Do you have some sort of physic poll that prioritises peoples thoughts on issues and thus rate them as important or not?

Do the GAGB represent the geocaching community or play lapdog to another geocaching entity?

[Palujia]

Enough with the attacks already ! - How many more time does it have to be re-iterated - GUIDELINES not RULES Follow or not. What Reviewers do is down to them NOT GAGB
As one of the "Un-elected", self seeking, grandiose, GS lackeys to quote someone whom I have never met and probably don't now wish to, I am tired of the attacks on an organisation set up to SUPPORT caching.
Elections are coming and if you are a member please vote for someone you wish to see on the committee - I will be more than happy to stand down for a "properly" elected member (not a "friend" of one of the other committee members - as has also been stated on other sites) I am sad that the great organisation which I joined, and the committee which I was honoured to join is under such constant and nasty attacks. I am for discussion, debate and open decisions. I am probably in a minority that still believes in honesty, decency and serving the community as best I can. More fool me - So get voting and get the committee you deserve.
THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE GAGB, OR ITS COMMITTE IN ANY WAY - DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT !

[Mongoose39uk]

I am glad, you feel confident there is no issue. I am sure other members of GAGB are also pleased that any issue they raise must first be ratified before the GAGB committee can waste time on them.

With out an open debate though, how else would we know others have the same issues?

Do you have some sort of physic poll that prioritises peoples thoughts on issues and thus rate them as important or not?

Do the GAGB represent the geocaching community or play lapdog to another geocaching entity?

Pleas e read what I wrote, I am spending time on the issue, just not you personally.

[uktim]

Enough with the attacks already ! - How many more time does it have to be re-iterated - GUIDELINES not RULES Follow or not. What Reviewers do is down to them NOT GAGB
As one of the "Un-elected", self seeking, grandiose, GS lackeys to quote someone whom I have never met and probably don't now wish to, I am tired of the attacks on an organisation set up to SUPPORT caching.
Elections are coming and if you are a member please vote for someone you wish to see on the committee - I will be more than happy to stand down for a "properly" elected member (not a "friend" of one of the other committee members - as has also been stated on other sites) I am sad that the great organisation which I joined, and the committee which I was honoured to join is under such constant and nasty attacks. I am for discussion, debate and open decisions. I am probably in a minority that still believes in honesty, decency and serving the community as best I can. More fool me - So get voting and get the committee you deserve.
THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE GAGB, OR ITS COMMITTE IN ANY WAY - DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT !

When organisations create unecessary extra guidelines there will always be a risk that they get used as rules by people who should know better. I still question whether we need UK specific guidelines.

[Mongoose39uk]

After a long discussion with a groundspeak reviewer.

There would appear to be no definitive answer.

Some of the guidelines are treated as requirements

It would appear that ones where specific landowner permission is required (please see landowner database), then a level of evidence is required.

Dry stone walls, not knowingly published

Caches in plastic bags, not knowingly published.

Other guidelines are used as guidelines, the emphasis being on trying to publish the cache while trying to ensure that the cache does not cause distress to others.

As for the OP's concerns of being on a blacklist. If you have concerns of this nature you can complain to groundspeak if you wish. If you do not wish to do this you can discuss it with the reviewer. If for whatever reason you do not wish to deal directly with the reviewer I am sure that either I or another member of the committee would be prepared to help. We would need your permission, we would then need to contact the reviewer for their permission as obviously we would need to see both sides of any correspondence.

I have spoken to Deceangi regarding this type of mediation, he personally has no objections if the GAGB act as a mediator on a members behalf. As they are fullfilling one of the core roles of the GAGB. By representing the member

[keehotee]

I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.


And of course that would have nothing to do with some cache owners studying the guidelines and taking time with their hides and listings to make sure they comply - or have provided any additional info they might feel will help to the reviewer when they hit the submit button, would it???

[Ve8]

After a long discussion with a groundspeak reviewer.

There would appear to be no definitive answer.

Some of the guidelines are treated as requirements

It would appear that ones where specific landowner permission is required (please see landowner database), then a level of evidence is required.

Dry stone walls, not knowingly published

Caches in plastic bags, not knowingly published.

Other guidelines are used as guidelines, the emphasis being on trying to publish the cache while trying to ensure that the cache does not cause distress to others.

As for the OP's concerns of being on a blacklist. If you have concerns of this nature you can complain to groundspeak if you wish. If you do not wish to do this you can discuss it with the reviewer. If for whatever reason you do not wish to deal directly with the reviewer I am sure that either I or another member of the committee would be prepared to help. We would need your permission, we would then need to contact the reviewer for their permission as obviously we would need to see both sides of any correspondence.

I have spoken to Deceangi regarding this type of mediation, he personally has no objections if the GAGB act as a mediator on a members behalf. As they are fullfilling one of the core roles of the GAGB. By representing the member

Thanks for an informative post.

With regards to the blacklisting allegations I am personally aware of 4-5 incidents, however I will get the blessing of the cachers concerned before posting details. No instances warrant rule breaks on the reviewers part but they do have similarities pulling up many questions to a cacher before publishing similar to Sven's situation. There are also similar incidents where caches of individuals have been systematically held back.

Moving on to UK Reviewers treating selected guidelines as rules I would think a statement from Groundspeak would be appropriate. Albeit on a voluntary basis reviewers are employed by a profit making company and are therefore working under their supervision.

Maybe the GAGB could request a statement from Groundspeak? if not I'd happy to send them a note.

No so long back Groundspeak's guidelines clearly stated something about complying with rules set down local organisations, this has since been removed.

The following is now quoted as the reason GAGB guidelines are implemented by reviewers.
"Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement."

This line clearly deals with any local legal issues, unless GAGB committee members are MPs I fail to see how this can a valid reason. Regulations and laws are by no means guidelines.

A quick question, why is it that only one reviewer feels the need to post on this topic? The UK has quite a few reviewers now and to be frank you are not being represented very well.

[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......so it appears reading it the reviewer is the only one at fault so it quickly turns into a 'reviewer bashing' rant. If ALL the information was correctly provided about the cache I'd comment. But until then I won't. It's between the cache owner and the reviewers. 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. Then I would consider replying to the original subject of this thread.
Please email me through my geocaching.com profile here (https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=41833a1f-2f80-4253-99ae-4e101d9f1c33).

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.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

[Sven]

Not all the information is being provided in either forum thread......

:confused:

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 another cache.

If you're going to accuse me of being deceitful then provide the details I've got nothing to hide here.

[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:rolleyes:

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 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 [URL="http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk"] www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk (http://coord.info/GC2ZCGW)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

[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? :confused:

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 (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

[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 (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

[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 :confused:

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? :dunno:

[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. (http://www.emcache.com/index.php/topic,1011.msg16948.html#msg16948)

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:

http://www.qwerf.com/giddyup.png

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

:rolleyes:

[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

:rolleyes:

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::beer:

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/index.php?showtopic=282018&view=findpost&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]

http://www.emcache.com/gallery/1365_17_09_11_1_54_56.jpeg
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/topic,1011.msg16948.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.

http://boards.buffalobills.com/images/smilies/tumbleweed.gif

[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 (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

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?!?! :confused::confused::confused:



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. :dunno:

:confused:

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 (http://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 :confused:

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 :popcorn:

[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 (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk/)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

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!

:ohmy:

Course there is no blacklist, right? :rolleyes:

[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 (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk)
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books (http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php)

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! :dunno:

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?
:dunno:

[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?
:dunno:

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

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[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 (http://www.youtube.com/geocachespoilers) youtube vlog. Turns out someone (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4262) doesn't like 'spoiler' videos and has complained and they're demanding I remove content from my channel.

Course, there is no blacklist. Right? :dunno:

[bobbinz]

I thought your videos were featured on the GC blog this week?

[Bear and Ragged]

I thought your videos were featured on the GC blog this week?
Groundspeak should Ban themselves for posting the same, and more, spoilers?

:ph34r:

[markandlynn]

vlogs were heavily promoted in the blog
Here without the spoiler warning on Sept 30th
http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/09/geocaching-vlogs-and-online-videos-the-new-horizon-of-caching-media/

and here with a spoiler warning on October 7th

http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/10/geocaching-vlogs-part-2/

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

[Lord Boogie]

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

Why?:confused:

[markandlynn]

Why?:confused:
PM sent

[Lord Boogie]

I agree that the links in svens post should be deleted :ohmy: ... even though they are relevant and highlight a very worrying vendetta against him. That has also resulted in what I see as harassment by an organisation. They have an unfortunate consequence.

It may well be that we do not have ALL of the facts and facets but enough to see a worrying totalitarian attitude.

[Sven]

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

Wat?


I agree that the links in svens post should be deleted


Wat?



It may well be that we do not have ALL of the facts.

Wat?

Not sure what MarkandLynn might have told you that cannot be said publicly? (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=53052&postcount=105). I've got nothing to hide, not sure what they have?

[markandlynn]

Wat?



Wat?



Wat?

Not sure what MarkandLynn might have told you that cannot be said publicly? (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=53052&postcount=105). I've got nothing to hide, not sure what they have?

Identical PM sent to you as well Sven

[markandlynn]

vlogs were heavily promoted in the blog
Here without the spoiler warning on Sept 30th
http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/09/geocaching-vlogs-and-online-videos-the-new-horizon-of-caching-media/

and here with a spoiler warning on October 7th

http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/10/geocaching-vlogs-part-2/



It appears that the link to Svens you tube account has been edited out of the blog post,
does anyone have an archive list of it ??

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm not sure, but I might have a link to one of the videos. Perhaps this is it? http://youtu.be/RjJkrd5ag3I or this: http://youtu.be/FixLh5RZ5rY or this: http://youtu.be/98_UaJbdh5E?
It's getting confusing with all those geocaching videos out there now. Perhaps a Groundspeak reviewer will know the correct account name as they seem to have been following him closely? I can only make assumptions.

[bobbinz]

Geocachespoilers is the account name. http://www.youtube.com/user/geocachespoilers

[Sven]

A reviewer Mancunian/Deci seems to be alluding to the fact that I'm hiding something. (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=283508&view=findpost&p=4867199)

I'm not.

Course he does it on a forum where I cannot defend myself and reply :mad:

[Happy Humphrey]

I made the point on the gc.com forum that if all we're aware of is "the tip of the iceberg" then the ban must be due to the other factors that we don't know about.

So I have to assume that the whole "geocache spoiler video" incident is pretty much irrelevant and something much bigger has taken place that we don't know about (i.e. the submerged iceberg!).

Unfortunately, Groundspeak seem happy to sit back and let us make fools of ourselves by feeding us the odd scrap of information and keeping the rest to themselves. Or so it appears.

[Sven]

I was banned on the same day I resolved all outstanding reviewer issues with my cache, the one discussed in this thread (which by the way still hasn't been authorised, the reviewer conveniently claims that Sandy - the person who banned me - also "locked" my unreviewed cache...)

Resolved all the issues, they've got nothing else to deny the cache on, so they ban me with some trumped up crap about youtube videos?

If I wear red socks whilst caching it should be no concern of groundspeaks.

If I decide to upload videos to youtube it shouldn't be neither.

[Lord Boogie]

If this were an employer employee situation there is a good case for constructive dismissal.

Under UK law there could be in breach of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 "to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress'." Not sure how that applies to companies especially overseas ones?

In any event, if what we are being told by Sven is the whole truth, and I do not have any reason to doubt that at this point, it is clear he is being stalked by representatives of a multinational company.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

If this were an employer employee situation there is a good case for constructive dismissal.

Under UK law there could be in breach of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 "to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress'." Not sure how that applies to companies especially overseas ones?

In any event, if what we are being told by Sven is the whole truth, and I do not have any reason to doubt that at this point, it is clear he is being stalked by representatives of a multinational company.

When you become a Member of Groundspeak's Web Sites, you agree that the relevant laws which apply are those of Washington State USA. The TOU agreed to were written by a Lawyer, who also happens to be one of the Owners of Groundspeak.

Sven I have sent you a PM in reply to your Post, please do not quote any part of it to any other person. Without my prior permission, due to the fact I have replied to a comment you have made, the reply which is confidential.

For everyone's information the PM is not a attack, just factual comments!

Deci

[Sven]

Sven I have sent you a PM in reply to your Post, please do not quote any part of it to any other person. Without my prior permission, due to the fact I have replied to a comment you have made, the reply which is confidential.


Can I have your permission to quote it? You know, reveal this "iceberg" :rolleyes:

[Happy Humphrey]

It sounds like it's subject to a police investigation, or at least that criminal charges may be forthcoming.

So perhaps we don't want to know what it's all about!

[Lord Boogie]

When you become a Member of Groundspeak's Web Sites, you agree that the relevant laws which apply are those of Washington State USA. The TOU agreed to were written by a Lawyer, who also happens to be one of the Owners of Groundspeak.


That doesn't frighten me:applause:! We live in the UK, have you ever read the phrase "This does not affect your statutory rights" ?. This is a clause that companies put in so not to fall foul of illegal contractual obligations in their TOU or T&C's. I guess groundspeak do not think UK law applies to them? Please point out to me where it states in the TOU that you agree to be stalked and harassed?

By your way of thinking a service you sign up to could, in a TOU, demand that you at any time submit to some sort of sexual act. Clearly this would be against the law to enforce, but you seem to think this would be OK!

Your statement just serves as a bully tactic.:dunno:

[Sven]

I've been speaking at length with GS both Eric and Sandy both maintain the terms say that you're not allowed to upload spoilers without permission anywhere.



You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.


I read it quite differently.

Infact the paragraph preceding also states:



All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (https://forums.groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize.


Although he did say the intention of the terms WAS to say that. Even if they do not now, and likely would be changed. However he also agreed that without giving a GC code how can my videos be spoilers? So he said that also needs clarifying.

On the positive Eric is a lovely gentleman, he supports what I do and thinks it's very good for the community. His parting words were he wants me "back online as soon as possible" but he's waiting for the legal eagle and owner Brian to get back off vacation, so it might take a couple of weeks.

[Happy Humphrey]

However he also agreed that without giving a GC code how can my videos be spoilers?
Good point. What's a spoiler?

In my view, a spoiler is a direct link between the geocaching.com website and a photo or video published (anywhere), where the link is intended to give away a particular geocache hide.

So if I log a cache and in the log I provide a link to a Youtube video which shows the cache retrieval then it's a spoiler. The same if there's a discussion about caches in the Groundspeak forum and I illustrate a post with a link to the Youtube video, and mention the name of the cache.

If the Youtube video isn't mentioned on a cache page, in logs or in a Groundspeak forum then I should be safe from retribution.

If I'd provided the link I couldn't claim that the giveaway was unintentional because it's obvious that I'd seen the video and therefore knew that it involved details of the cache retrieval, so providing the link was bound to turn it into a spoiler.

Where it gets more tricky is if the Youtube video is not referenced on any Groundspeak website; but I add text to the video which links it with the relevant cache listing (either by hyperlink, or GC code, or cache name and location). Is that a spoiler? I'm not sure. I don't think so, because you can search the Groundspeak web sites for all your worth and you won't find any help there. You'd have to do your research, and if you seek out spoiler information externally then perhaps you deserve to find it.

What I AM sure about is that if there's no link on gc.com to the video and the video contains no link or mention of the cache name or number then Groundspeak cannot possibly be justified in asking for its removal.

[Sven]

Video I made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8Yy_HChuk) (not a spoiler vid) has entertained some good comments, I've introduced loads of people to the sport and put lots of money in groundspeak's pockets it seems.

How about alienating your biggest free advertisement?

Vid has only been up a few hours



#7 – Most Discussed (This Month) – Travel & Events
#1 – Most Discussed (Today) – Travel & Events
#11 – Most Discussed (Today) – Travel & Events – Global
#1 – Most Discussed (This Week) – Travel & Events
#47 – Most Discussed (This Week) – Travel & Events – Global
#19 – Top Favourited (Today) – Travel & Events
#69 – Top Favourited (This Week) – Travel & Events
#30 – Top Rated (This Month) – Travel & Events
#1 – Top Rated (Today) – Travel & Events
#22 – Top Rated (Today) – Travel & Events – Global
#4 – Top Rated (This Week) – Travel & Events


Someone also created a petition (http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2321902-bring-back-geocachespoilers-), 229 votes so far...For what it's worth :confused:

[The Gaggle]

+3 from me.

As I've said elsewhere these vids can only benefit geocaching by raising the game to new levels.

In my area there is a definite lack of imaginative hides. I recently put out some caches based on ideas gleaned (stolen/ripped off/adopted best practice) from Sven’s YouTube vids, they have been very well received and got loads of fav points.

How can that be a bad thing?

If mine made it to your channel I’d be proud and include a “as featured in........” in the description – if I’d be allowed

Cheers

[Palujia]

Fine - ignore them then ! This has become less of a debate and more of a Circus
The object of GAGB is to support and help UK cachers not act as vehicle for self advertisement and "wounded" chest beating. I do not see anywhere on this and other "like" threads anything of any help or support - or even anything other than very argumentative people who appear to be determined to drag us down into their own very limited and personal fights with this and other caching organisations - good luck to you - but please do not use GAGB as a platform for your "crusades"

[Happy Humphrey]

By officially stating that we shouldn't be discussing it here, you infer that the GAGB has deemed the discussion unnecessary, presumably because it's not seen as an issue. Or was this post simply aimed at the last posting by Sven? If so it hasn't been made clear because it also looks like it's a sharp dig aimed at anyone who has dared to post here.

Can you at least direct us to the GAGB's policy on spoilers and caching videos? The whole point is that most people are saying "fine - ignore them then" but the people with the power are warning us that they will take action against people who post what they term "spoilers", whether or not they are linked to their site. So for instance, if I was to link to one of Sven's videos in this post right here in the GAGB's own territory, I would probably have my Groundspeak account shut down.

And the reason that it seems like a "circus" is that the discussion has had to move about, due to Groundspeak wanting to close down the debate, and due to their action against one of your members. I would have been content to keep the details within the EMCache forum, but wider issues appeared which made it worth bringing to the notice of the gc.com members who might also be affected.

[Palujia]

I'm not officially stating anything - Are you the only ones allowed to have opinions ? I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !

[Sven]

when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

[The Hornet]

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

I was around when the GAGB was set up and even though at the time I did not join it I would argue that its purpose was generally what Palujia said. Since then I have been active on and off and have seen GAGB develop and change, not always necessarily in the direction I would like. But that's just me :o

However in this particular case I believe Sven has been badly treated and as he can no longer pursue his case on Groundspeak the GAGB forum is the logical place to go. GAGB itself has taken some flak recently for their involvement with Groundspeak so it is good to see this forum being the home of some criticism of Groundspeak. Not necessarily because I agree or disagree with the criticism, but because it shows a willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints without fear of censorship.

What concerns me about Sven's disagreement with Groundspeak is the lack of redress any regular cacher has if they are in dispute with Groundspeak or any of their employees/representatives. The oft quoted phrase is "well you can always report it to appeals@groundspeak.com". But all you are doing is appealing to the body with which you are in dispute. In normal business situations you can take your dispute to one of the many Ombudsmen or independent review bodies. Groundspeak customers do not have that sort of redress. We could really do with an independent Ofcache ;)

Failing that, this forum has to continue to allow full expression of all points of view. It's all we have, so good on the GAGB for being our sounding board.

[Lord Boogie]

I'm not officially stating anything - Are you the only ones allowed to have opinions ? I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !

Thank you so much for your input. I fell better already :cheers:

[Lord Boogie]

If mine made it to your channel I’d be proud and include a “as featured in........” in the description – if I’d be allowed

Cheers

Probably get you banned ;)

[Happy Humphrey]

(Committee member, as stated on post)
...
The object of GAGB is to support and help UK cachers not act as vehicle for self advertisement and "wounded" chest beating...
...but please do not use GAGB as a platform for your "crusades"
...

That looks to me like an official statement, that we shouldn't be discussing this matter here. If it's not, then perhaps you should put a Deceangi-style disclaimer on such posts to emphasise that it's not the Palujia (wearing GAGB committee hat ) speaking, just the Palujia (forum participant). And I'd advise against making commands on behalf of the GAGB if you're acting unofficially.


No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !
I don't see where I've called you such names in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter). But in the GAGB's enthusiasm to support this particular geocacher (and fellow GAGB member) it seems to have caused some confusion as to how it's actually helping. At least (I had hoped, like The Hornet) the GAGB provides an independent but influential and nationwide forum for people to air their opinions. If some opinions turn out to be unjustifiably critical of a geocaching organisation, then I'm sure that there will be posts that balance out the debate. Personally, I was interested in how Sven's ban relates to others who've posted Youtube videos of caches and where the boundary lines are / should be drawn. This is where the debate headed after getting away from the original topic.

Now, Groundspeak-forum style, is someone ready to start a nice, fluffy thread about your nicest caching day out? Perhaps with a video to illustrate the best cache you found (oops!). :)

[Mongoose39uk]

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

I did contact you, nothing offensive, just an offer of help.

[Sven]

I did contact you, nothing offensive, just an offer of help.

Sorry I'm misunderstood, I meant there was no support only seemingly rude messages from Palujia.

Both yourself and DrDickandVick have been helpful, thanks. These comments baffle me though:



I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers


Not quite sure what warranted this, I see nobody and nothing in this thread... :dunno:

[Mongoose39uk]

Sorry I'm misunderstood, I meant there was no support only seemingly rude messages from Palujia.

Both yourself and DrDickandVick have been helpful, thanks. These comments baffle me though:



Not quite sure what warranted this, I see nobody and nothing in this thread... :dunno:


Thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps we do need to be clear about posts that are personal opinions.

[Palujia]

As I have often stated my views are mine and not attributed to any one or any organisation. I am not intentionally "rude" - just putting things as I see them. If that offends you then so be it, I have felt offended often enough but have not said anything, but having read threads on other forums then spreading to this it has got to the point where I am seriously thinking of finding another hobby - or at least just using GS and not getting involved in futile exchanges on forums

[Happy Humphrey]

Remember - as is oft repeated - that there is geocaching and there are forums and the two things are quite separate worlds.

[Lord Boogie]

I am seriously thinking of finding another hobby - or at least just using GS and not getting involved in futile exchanges on forums

I may or may not speak for many when I say that would be a shame. It's also a shame you feel discussion is futile. I read lots of posts some comments I do not agree with, but as I do not feel strongly enough or have anything constructive to say I keep quite.

As for being rude, your posts do often come across with anger. Not a criticism just an observation.

[Lord Boogie]

I made the point on the gc.com forum that if all we're aware of is "the tip of the iceberg" then the ban must be due to the other factors that we don't know about.

So I have to assume that the whole "geocache spoiler video" incident is pretty much irrelevant and something much bigger has taken place that we don't know about (i.e. the submerged iceberg!).

Unfortunately, Groundspeak seem happy to sit back and let us make fools of ourselves by feeding us the odd scrap of information and keeping the rest to themselves. Or so it appears.

Well it seems that is all about the spoilers ;) http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2321902-bring-back-geocachespoilers-?tracking_code=5946f1eb73dbdb6911200f72cca14d2e

[martybartfast]

Today I've made a few responses to the thread over in the GC forum, I realise that Sven is unable to respond over there ;), but then again it wasn't my idea to start that thread following his ban. Anyway I don't intend to repost here what I've written, but if Sven want's to respond he has my permission to quote here anything I said overthere and I'll reply if appropriate.

[Lord Boogie]

There has been a reply from me also. I give my permission ect ect.:popcorn:

[Ve8]

It seems Groundspeak have preformed a U turn regarding spoilers and will be rewriting the guidelines.

Sven has been given the OK to continue.

Details:
http://www.emcache.com/index.php?topic=1132

[Sven]

It seems Groundspeak have preformed a U turn regarding spoilers and will be rewriting the guidelines.

Sven has been given the OK to continue.



This is indeed true, and rightly so. Very glad I stuck firmly to my guns, a victory for common sense.

Although Eric did admit, bless him, he's got absolutely no idea how to ban or unban anyone....So is waiting for someone to come into the office but it will be done first thing in the morning.

CACHE ON!

[Betelgeuse]

Excellent news, common sense prevails!

[frosty68]

good news, sven. I'm new to all this, but read the threads both here and at groundspeak, and it seemed unfair that you were banned. So long as the cache owners had no objections to your videos (and were made aware out of politeness if nothing else) it's all good, and useful for someone new, like myself, to see some of the hides..it's not all tupperware :)