Fire Hydrant Signs - consultation

[The Wombles]

Groundspeak received a complaint about a fake Fire Hydrant sign in South Wales from the local Fire Service. The Fire Service have asked that no more fake Fire Hydrant signs are put up which they consider to be a safety risk.

We understand that Groundspeak are now not allowing fake Fire Hydrant signs in that area and we have suggested that this is added to their wiki.

We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs so we are now running a consultation with UK cachers and any listing sites who wish to contribute and take an active part. This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

Please post your views here.

[halthornhill]

I would fully agree Wombles.
My father in law is a fire hydrant technician with the fire service and they take these things very seriously. It may not be completely obvious looking at a yellow square with an H on it but they save lives.
If there is an emergency and the fire service are looking for a hydrant only to find out that it is not a real hydrant then the consequences could be fatal.

I would fully support a ban on fake hydrants. However, I would not see an issue if a cache is hidden behind a real hydrant as long as the information on the sign is not altered in any way.

[Bear and Ragged]

As above!
NO fake signs, in a 'Safety situation' should be used.

[Predictable Bob]

:confused:

I'm amazed that anybody would actually consider producing a fake sign in the first place - the implications are obvious !

:eek:

[redsox_mark]

I agree, it is obvious that fake hydrants should not be allowed.

[Palujia]

As this is a national safety issue it should be a rule rather than a guideline. I hope other organisations agree. I'm sure that all cachers can be agreed on this one

[Sven]

As this is a national safety issue it should be a rule rather than a guideline. I hope other organisations agree. I'm sure that all cachers can be agreed on this one

+1

[Ve8]

We understand that Groundspeak are now not allowing fake Fire Hydrant signs in that area...

So its fine to place one outside this area :ohmy::ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:


I'm no legal eagle but I'd be surprised if creating fake signs of this nature was not already against the law.

Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.

[border caz]

:confused:

I'm amazed that anybody would actually consider producing a fake sign in the first place - the implications are obvious !

:eek:

I'm with you there, Bob.

[Mad H@ter]

So its fine to place one outside this area :ohmy::ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:


I'm no legal eagle but I'd be surprised if creating fake signs of this nature was not already against the law.

Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.
Agree.
I was thinking that there must be other similar senarios that should also be included. this suggestion should hopefully cover this.

[Alan White]

I thought that fire hydrants were some things they have in the United States: pillars on the sidewalk for the fire service to plug hoses into. I wasn't aware that we have similar things in this country and have always assumed that the yellow H signs were information for water service employees so they could find stop valves. I would hope that the fire service knows where to obtain water. I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H: surely the water mains and hydrants are mapped? I've not heard of any other fire hydrant caches and therefore I believe that this particular case is an isolated incident which requires no futher action. History shows that laws made quickly or in response to only a few incidents are rarely good laws.

One of the reasons why I don't like GAGB is their rule-bound ethos and whenever there's an incident there's immediately a knee-jerk reaction of a new rule. In general, I'm not in favour of rules in what is supposed to be just a bit of harmless fun. I do applaud GAGB for asking first, though the reply-by date seems to have passed already. Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.

From what I've read, the water hydrants are owned by the water company and their use is governed by licence. However, fake water hydrants are neither owned by the water company nor licensed. I haven't been able to find anything on the legality of imitating a water hydrant and unless there is such a law then the fire service can't demand that caches not use fake hydrants. Conversely, if there is such a law then there's no need for a GAGB rule.

It seems that the concern in this case is that non-cachers may be placed at risk by firemen wasting time looking for the hydrant which is pointed to by a fake sign. Aside from my belief that firemen should know where to find water the obvious solution therefore would have been to use values which are meaningless. But anyway, what about caches under water, under bridges, and on mountains or cliffs? Such caches also place the public and the rescue services in danger because if the cacher gets into trouble then a passing non-cacher may try to help, or the mountain rescue service may be called thus placing them - and others who may need their help - at risk. Are we to ban caches because they're "dangerous", however that's defined?

If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.

However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
"Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."

[Mongoose39uk]

I thought that fire hydrants were some things they have in the United States: pillars on the sidewalk for the fire service to plug hoses into. I wasn't aware that we have similar things in this country and have always assumed that the yellow H signs were information for water service employees so they could find stop valves. I would hope that the fire service knows where to obtain water. I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H: surely the water mains and hydrants are mapped? I've not heard of any other fire hydrant caches and therefore I believe that this particular case is an isolated incident which requires no futher action. History shows that laws made quickly or in response to only a few incidents are rarely good laws.

One of the reasons why I don't like GAGB is their rule-bound ethos and whenever there's an incident there's immediately a knee-jerk reaction of a new rule. In general, I'm not in favour of rules in what is supposed to be just a bit of harmless fun. I do applaud GAGB for asking first, though the reply-by date seems to have passed already. Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.

From what I've read, the water hydrants are owned by the water company and their use is governed by licence. However, fake water hydrants are neither owned by the water company nor licensed. I haven't been able to find anything on the legality of imitating a water hydrant and unless there is such a law then the fire service can't demand that caches not use fake hydrants. Conversely, if there is such a law then there's no need for a GAGB rule.

It seems that the concern in this case is that non-cachers may be placed at risk by firemen wasting time looking for the hydrant which is pointed to by a fake sign. Aside from my belief that firemen should know where to find water the obvious solution therefore would have been to use values which are meaningless. But anyway, what about caches under water, under bridges, and on mountains or cliffs? Such caches also place the public and the rescue services in danger because if the cacher gets into trouble then a passing non-cacher may try to help, or the mountain rescue service may be called thus placing them - and others who may need their help - at risk. Are we to ban caches because they're "dangerous", however that's defined?

If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.

However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
"Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."

Part of the consultation is to see if we even need a new guideline.

[Predictable Bob]

If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.




:)

One google later ...

A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).


:)

[Sven]

I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H

But....that's exactly what they do, after exhausting their water onboard.

[Alan White]

A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).

Thanks for that - I did try, honest. Still, it's quite a recent Act and such things are rarely well publicised. Even the Highway Code doesn't make reference to it, except to say "Do not stop or park...Anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services", and I take that to mean access gates etc rather than hydrants.

However, the important point is that a fake fire hydrant sign does not "damage or obstruct a fire hydrant".

[martybartfast]

However, the important point is that a fake fire hydrant sign does not "damage or obstruct a fire hydrant".

But when your house is burning down with you in it, and the fire service are following a fake sign to try and find a hydrant that doesn't exist, the time wasted could just be enough :(

[halthornhill]

Can't believe that some cant see this as a real danger!!!

It is an offence to obstruct a fire hydrant.
It would also be an offence if the emergency services were hindered by a vehicle covering a hydrant. This would probably also apply if they were obstructed in their duty by a false one (although this had never been proved in court as far as we know)

[Sven]

This was raised on [..]. Or it could have been[..]top of my head I can't remember. Not really an issue where it came from, its a issue that's been raised so rather than ignore it, it has been put out for discussion.

I don't care where the issue was raised, it shouldn't have to be raised imho!



To clarify once more GAGB publish guidelines not rules.

Although clearly as this thread demonstrates some people lack common sense. Perhaps the GAGB should issue some rules especially when lives are potentially at risk.

2p

[Bear and Ragged]

...
Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.


As far as Joe Public is concerned a cache is a cache.
They are not bothered /don't know about the various different listing sites.

If a cacher from site A makes a cache look like a bomb, and leaves it next to the local police station we all get a bad reputation from the fall out, when the cache is discovered. Especially if the Bomb Squad get called out...

We have a responsibility to be sensible with what, and where, when we place a cache, so we don't bring 'Caching' into disrepute.

[Mongoose39uk]

We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs so we are now running a consultation with UK cachers and any listing sites who wish to contribute and take an active part. This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

[MBFace]

Sorry you feel that way. I was actually trying to look after the interests of the GAGB as it appears to me that the GAGB is being used to serve a personal agenda. As stated in the OP the GAGB have been asked to create a RULE, by whom is what I was asking.

For me unless we know all the facts it appears that the agenda is being set behind closed doors by possibly a commercial organisation.

Come off it, we're talking safety here :mad: as anyone who has looked at the Facebook topic will already know.

[MBFace]

I have had a quick skim on the GAGB facebook page but can not see it, can you post a link?

Not sure how to do links. It's in UK & Ireland GC Reviewers & Community Tea Bar (http://www.facebook.com/groups/reviewers/) and posted by Terry Ryan.

[Sven]

DELETED POST:

My statements are now redundant and have been answered later in this thread, so removing so not to spread false information.

[Happy Humphrey]

However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
"Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."


Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.
I agree with the above.

[Nick&Ali]

Where there's a total lack of common sense, you need rules rather than guidelines.

[MBFace]

Glad to hear you take this as an issue of safety, perhaps we could hear a few of your thoughts on the topic? Or you could just keep stirring the pot, it is a free country for now it's your pleasure.

We don't seem to have heard your thoughts on the actual topic either.

[Mongoose39uk]

It may just be me but I can not see on there who requested the GAGB look at this either :dunno:. This is yet another FB page I don't monitor!

I am not going to disclose which reviewer made the request. As all members they have a right to make a request privately if they wish. So do you.

Now lets get on with discussing the real issue as per the OP.

[Mrs Blorenge]

It may just be me but I can not see on there who requested the GAGB look at this either :dunno:. This is yet another FB page I don't monitor!


Adding a bit more info so you can find it (because facebook posts move down so fast)...

As MBFace says, it's in UK & Ireland Reviewers' Tea Bar (http://www.facebook.com/groups/thegagb/#%21/groups/reviewers/) ... scroll down to the post from Terry Ryan on 2nd November.

[rufus 430]

For what its worth - the view of a fairly new cacher reading through this thread, which in responding may seem to stray off topic a bit.
When I first discovered caching I dropped in here alot for newbie type info. since then I haven't been back really until I had my email about voting & felt that as the organisation is representing my hobby I really ought to show an interest.

I was surprised at the extent of what appears to me - I admit an outsider - to be petty & also fairly disrespectful bickering between people, for whom as afar as i can see the main difference is the listing site they chose to select their caches from. All sorts of accusations flying around.
This was to the extent that i almost thought, you know what i'm just going to walk away from this & pretend the GAGB doesn't exist,:dunno: then common sense prevailed & I voted - no vote no voice etc.

Today i went on the facebook page & saw a link to this discussion. I remembered the discussion on the page about it & thought I'd drop in to see how the discussion was going.
The same thing appears to be happening again.

Again as an outsider & a newbie - surely the important point here is that the caching community - it doesn't matter which 'branch' first contact was with! - has been made aware, by those who are in a position to know, that this type of cache has potential safety consequenses for the public.

Clearly since this type of cache has been placed in the past, this may occur again. Therefore it seems sensible to have some sort of guideline which makes those who may not otherwise appreciate it could be a problem, that this type of cache is undesirable.
Quite apart from simply addressing a potential safety concern, surely it makes sense in order to protect the reputation of the game as a whole by avoiding further similar complaints?!

I would agree with a previous poster that the guideline probably needs to be a bit broader than specifically fire hydrants, as there are undoubtedly similar scenarios which present the same problems.

Thats it, newbie had her admittedly long winded say for what its worth - please try to play nice!! :rolleyes::ph34r: & come to the best decision for the game rather than bringing politics into it!

[The Hornet]

I am someone who has for a long time thought there was a proliferation of new RULES (anyone who really considers them guidelines needs to place a cache disobeying one and see how far they get!) I think that trying to legislate for every eventuality is a futile exercise. I think that Alan White's suggested guideline is an excellent idea and gives the GC reviewers sufficient background to enable them to justify denying or archiving a Groundspeak cache on common sense grounds. After all, I do know how reviewers work and I still remember having to apply what we thought was common sense grounds for refusing "stupid" caches that were not specifically covered by the then Groundspeak "guidelines".

This is a simple game played by and administered by simple people. Why make any more complicated than necessary?

All that being said, I have an uneasy feeling that anything slightly contentious that is brought up in these forums is seemingly being used as a weapon to promote one of two apparently opposing factions. As an outsider who has no axe to grind I am rapidly becoming sick of both sides sniping and innuendo.

FFS PLEASE get out there and hide/seek plastic boxes. Being able to explore our towns, villages and open countryside at a whim is a luxury a lot of people would dearly love to be able to indulge in but cannot.

YOU are the lucky ones - don't forget it.

[stainless-steel-rat]

A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).As Bob has so kindly pointed out there is a law covering this and i feel sure there will be other such laws covering other types of safety signage.

So a new rule/guideline (call it whatever you like) needs to cover all safety signs and equipment with maybe an example being a fire hydrant.

This would prevent someone that is planing to create a fake emergency telephone box from thinking "oh its only hydrants that are banned so it doesn't mean me"

You would have thought common sense would have covered this in the first place but as we all know its not that common.

[Mongoose39uk]

Please stay on subject

[Mongoose39uk]

TBH I think the code of conduct covers it really, may need an example throwing in.

[Alan White]

But would just like to clarify who asked the GAGB to consider making it a rule?
An excellent question. Reading further down the thread it seems that someone in a closed place on Facebook for UK Groundspeak reviewers made the request. It seems to me that this is yet another rule being made at the request of Groundspeak (cf. fake bolts, memorials, and urban caches, to name just a few). For how long are GB cachers going to allow the representatives of a foreign commercial company to dictate the rules of the hobby? GAGB is supposed to represent cachers: Groundspeak is quite able to represent itself.

[frosty68]

To add my own, I'm ashamed to be part of a group whose members seem to prefer petty bickering to dealing with important issues, and those using this thread to "score points" should be ashamed of themselves.

My opinion on the original, and important question.
It would be nice to think nobody would be stupid enough to create a false safety sign of any type (fire hydrant, emergency exit, etc..), but it seems this game draws all sorts into its ranks, and, in this case, we need a rule to save the majority (and populace) from the stupidity of the few before the game is brought into further disrepute.

[Predictable Bob]

:confused:

Apologies for straying off topic a little but I think we'd all do well to remember that people vary in intelligence and common sense - what seems obvious to one individual will be a complete mystery to another ...

In military parlance - assumptions are the mother of all f ups !

Back on topic - In general I'm against rules and legislation as they are too often used in ways not intended but in this case I would be in favour of a general rule/guideline/whatever along the lines of Alan White's suggestion unless this is already covered by the existing guidlines


:cool:

[Brenin Tegeingl]

An excellent question. Reading further down the thread it seems that someone in a closed place on Facebook for UK Groundspeak reviewers made the request. It seems to me that this is yet another rule being made at the request of Groundspeak (cf. fake bolts, memorials, and urban caches, to name just a few). For how long are GB cachers going to allow the representatives of a foreign commercial company to dictate the rules of the hobby? GAGB is supposed to represent cachers: Groundspeak is quite able to represent itself.

Alan you and any other cacher are free to join the Facebook Group we don't discriminate on who joins. Currently the Group has 260 members, with the newest member being added approximately 2 hours ago (so around 11:00 on the 27-11-11).

Also the topic and the cache which generated the topic were heavily discussed on a separate Facebook group as well. One Non Reviewer who happens to be either a serving or former Fire Service Officer, made direct contact with the Mid and West Wales Fire Service, they made direct contact with Groundspeak. Who then instructed the Welsh Reviewers, not to List any similar cache in future.

FYI the owner of the Cache which instigated this issue, posted to the Non Reviewer FB Group that the West and Mid Wales Fire Service had requested that


The Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service has directly contacted Groundspeak (who own Geocaching.com) and asked that this cache be archived on Health and Safety grounds since the cache could cause fire crews confusion, potentially costing lives.

They have also asked that no other caches be hidden in Wales using real or fake Fire Hydrant signs.

why not contact your local Fire and Rescue Service, and obtain their official opinion on this.

The reason the GAGB was requested to consider implementing a Guideline over Hydrant Signs. Is that they are the ones in a position to interact with the "Other" Listing Sites. This is not a request generated by the UK Reviewers, but as you can see, it was generated by the Mid and West Fire and Rescue Service. Applying a Guideline that has been generated by a Emergency Service, is useless unless all Listing Sites apply it, and it's also useless if only one part of the UK applies it, because Emergency Services in other parts of the UK , will still be put "at risk" of fire crews facing confusion, potentially costing lives.

I sincerely hope that a member of your family or friends, are never "put at risk" because a member of the UK's Geocaching Community thought it clever to use a False Hydrant sign as a Cache. One Listed on any Listing Site. Your attitude would soon change then!

Personally as I have been instructed by Groundspeak not to Publish any cache in North Wales, which uses a False or modified Hydrant Sign. I will not do so, I can't control what other Listing Sites do, but do hope that they will comply with the request of the Mid and West Wales Fire Service, and avoid potential risk of life.

To make it very clear to those who are "nit" picking about who generate the request. It was originally generated by the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, the GAGB being request to consider such a Guideline, as they are the ones who outreach to the other Listing Sites. As far as Groundspeak are concerned, no cache using a Hydrant Sign may be Listed in Wales on GC. It's now up to the GAGB and the Other Listing Sites, to decide if they adopt such a Guideline, or if they ignore the request of the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Please don't keep trying to point the finger of blame at GC's Reviewers.

Stop politicking and look at who actually made the request, and their reason for doing so!

Deci

In reply to the comment made by frosty68. The cache which generated this issue, was published in good faith. But as I often tell new geocachers, Geocaching is a never ending learning curve, with Reviewers one step ahead of the community,

This hobby is just 11 years old, and as such we are still on a learning curve, the Hydrant Sign is just one move on that learning curve. In the future when we hit the realms of Fahrenheit 451* we will then be in a position to not worry about the usage of Hydrant Signs as caches. But until then we do.

*No I'm not referring to the combustion point of books, but to the fact Fireman are no longer needed to put out Fires. As everything is Fireproof.

[dodgydaved]

A
It was originally generated by the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, the GAGB being request to consider such a Guideline, as they are the ones who outreach to the other Listing Sites. As far as Groundspeak are concerned, no cache using a Hydrant Sign may be Listed in Wales on GC.


(In the above quote the emphases are mine. DaveD)

In the above post Deci states that as Geocaching is only just 11 years old it is essential to realise it is still a growing pastime, and the way the game is played is still evolving, as it will continue to do.

The pastime is becoming more well known, is attracting a much more diverse following - in itself a very good agent for evolution - it is becoming more mainstream.

As such perhaps those in overall control (such as the owners of Geocaching.com, Opencaching, (Garmin) Opencaching, Terracaching etc) need to reconsider the language they use to run the pastime.

As I understand it a "Guideline" is a statement of what someone feels ought to be done. It is advisory and not mandatory.

A "Rule" or "Regulation" is something that has to be done. It is mandatory.

Where people see the phrase "Guideline" they could make a similar interpretation to my own, they could see it as advisory.

The placing of fake fire hydrant signs as being discussed here is, certainly for me, something that should not be done - for the variety of reasons already outlined.

It should be a rule, and stated as such in the various organisations manifestoes.

Placing a cache in a plastic bag can make the cache unpleasant and dank to handle, some authorities also have seen it as a hazard to wildlife. Perhaps the advice to not place a cache in a plastic bag could be seen as a "Guideline"?

I would expect a reviewer (from any organisation) to apply the "Rules" or "Regulations" asolutely, and be less fastidious about applying the "Guidleines" - other than to remind the CO of their existance.

Whatever phraseology is adopted, as with all "Rules", "Regulations" and "Guidelines" there will always be the added complication of interpretation (how else would the barristers and solicitors make a living), but use of a common and easily understandable phraseology could reduce the amount of angst and argument the evolution of a pastime has been shown to generate.

DaveD

[Lord Boogie]

Please stay on subject

That would seem the most sensible suggestion, particularly as there is a law covering this. Maybe rather than examples we could mention emergency signage in general and point out there are that laws prohibit imitating them?

edit to correct spelling... my very first and hopefully last post edit!

[welshcaseys]

I don't know enough to know whether 'rules' or 'guidelines' are needed for this, but do think something is needed (if it's not already covered somewhere else).

Although a lot of people would assume that firefighters would know where to locate hydrants (and I'm sure that many do, at least for the areas in which they work), the reality is that it's not always local firefighters who attend. Last year we had a lot of heath fires in the summer, several multiple car accidents and numerous other emergency calls, all of which were attended by fire crews from other areas because the local crews were either already busy elsewhere or needed additional help. It's also true that people under pressure or in unfamiliar circumstances don't always think as clearly as normal - and that even a few seconds delay could be catastrophic.

I don't think anyone would ever want to deliberately put people at risk and common sense is definitely an issue; that said, I'd like to think I've got a reasonable amount of common sense and I've made some pretty silly mistakes in the past. Sometimes it's easy to overlook something when you're caught up in the midst of it all and then, when you look back, you can't believe you made such a stupid mistake.

Maybe some guidelines with a few examples might help to avoid it?

[Fianccetto]

Totally agree that we don't want any yellow H signs used as geocaches, fake or otherwise.

When this first came up on facebook, I was surprised they were being sold without restriction too, but then read that the signs are sold legally because a fair number of larger private (or those new community/gated type) residences and business premises have a legal requirement to have a clear sign by the nearest water source (and provide access to the water source).

(Our nearest hydrant sign is on a nearby wall and the water is accessed under a metal cover in the road. It is always good to know where the nearest one is to where you live!)

[Happy Humphrey]

The RULE should be that no cache should be placed in such a way that that is illegal or causes (directly or indirectly) a nuisance or danger to the public.

The GUIDELINE should be not to place a cache in such a way that is illegal or causes (directly or indirectly) a problem with public safety. Examples include a fake sign that potentially misleads (e.g, fake fire hydrant sign, false direction sign), or tampering with safety barriers...etc. This is not a comprehensive list; check the law and use common sense.

Should it become clear that the rule has been broken for a particular cache, then it's sufficient for the reviewer to quote the rule without referring to the guideline.

Listing numerous rules which basically boil down to using common sense is likely to be counter-productive. There's bound to be the occasional cacher who'll check the list and if the cache breaks none of the specified rules then he'll go ahead. So another rule will have to be created to cover the new problem, but not until after a problem has been caused.

In any case, I guess the number of fire hydrant sign caches is pretty small. So having a specific rule just for those would be silly.

[Ve8]

From the groundspeak side of things surely this already covers the situation without the need for adding in extra bits:

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines
http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304

All local laws apply.This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it....I'm still at a loss to why Groundspeak have banned the hydrant sign caches in Wales ONLY (as stated by Deci). If the placement is illegal then the cache was already in breach of the guidelines before it was published (and not just in Wales).

[frosty68]

I'm still at a loss to why Groundspeak have banned the hydrant sign caches in Wales ONLY (as stated by Deci).
Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?

[Lord Boogie]

Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?

Or "they" thought common sense was :D

[Predictable Bob]

Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?

:dunno:

That's not beyond the realms of possibility - over the other side of the pond laws are different between states so it's not unreasonable to think that laws would differ between countries

:)

[Sven]

Although a lot of people would assume that firefighters would know where to locate hydrants (and I'm sure that many do, at least for the areas in which they work)

Without sounding rude, which might be hard on a textual medium....That's a very silly statement.

You're expecting these lads to know about little grates in the ground at irregular intervals on every single road in the xxx mile surrounding area?

:confused:

[Lord Boogie]

:dunno:

That's not beyond the realms of possibility - over the other side of the pond laws are different between states so it's not unreasonable to think that laws would differ between countries

:)

I thought we were the 53rd state :rolleyes:

[cooper troopers]

Not all firemen/women work the same patch i know our local fire station sometimes have to cover other locations so they are not local to the fire they would surely just look for the nearest yellow H they can find down a lane/road so that way it would be a risk of safety to have fake ones in place?

[TheRabble]

Hi, I'm new :)

My opinion...As has already been stated, I believe there is no need for any extra guidelines.

A cache is already required to be within the law. Imitating a fire hydrant is not within the law, so therefore there is already a guideline covering it.

No point creating ridiculous new guidelines for the sake of it just because of one incident.

Otherwise next week it'll be something else and another guideline will be added.

Cheers

Ben

[keehotee]

Hi, I'm new :)

My opinion...As has already been stated, I believe there is no need for any extra guidelines.

A cache is already required to be within the law. Imitating a fire hydrant is not within the law, so therefore there is already a guideline covering it.

No point creating ridiculous new guidelines for the sake of it just because of one incident.

Otherwise next week it'll be something else and another guideline will be added.

Cheers

Ben

I believe the issue is to do with fake fire hydrant signs, not hydrants themselves?

[The Odyssians]

A no brainier. A fake hydrant sign may cause safety issues in the event of a fire. One would assume that the fire services know where the hydrants are in any given area though.
Did someone actually think it would be a good idea to produce a fake hydrant? By its very production, advertisement on a website or in a shop...this is being given credence and, by connection with Groundspeak because they sell other caching items, accreditation as something which would be great to use.
Incredible. BAN them.

[Alan White]

we could mention emergency signage in general and point out there are that laws prohibit imitating them?
There are? If that's true then there's no need for any GAGB involvement. Please could you quote your source.

[Alan White]

In any case, I guess the number of fire hydrant sign caches is pretty small. So having a specific rule just for those would be silly.
Indeed so, and exactly the point I made in my first post. There's a modern tendency in society, whenever a specific issue arises, to make a law banning or restricting the thing that gave rise to the issue. Groundspeak, ably abetted by GAGB, is especially good at this.

This is a hobby about seeking harmless boxes in the countryside. It should not, and does not, require rules that need a lawyer to know and understand.

[Alan White]

Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?
The laws in the different nations of the UK are different. Scotland has always had its own laws and legal system; devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland has brought more differences; even local councils of all levels have their own laws which apply only within their jurisdictions.

[Alan White]

You're expecting these lads to know about little grates in the ground at irregular intervals on every single road in the xxx mile surrounding area?
I can't speak for welshcaseys but I would certainly expect the hydrants to be recorded and mapped and for the fire service control centre to be able to view on maps the location of the incident and the location of the nearest hydrants and to direct the firemen to them. If this isn't already done then that should be of much greater concern to those wanting more rules to restrict our hobby.

[t.a.folk]

We two are happy for there to be a guideline explicitly prohibiting the use of fake Fire Hydrant signs ,and any other piece of fake street furniture , for hiding caches or info for stages of caches .

[Alan White]

Imitating a fire hydrant is not within the law
And your source for that is...? Even if that's true, we're discussing fake hydrant signs, not fake hydrants.


No point creating ridiculous new guidelines for the sake of it just because of one incident.
I agree entirely. Unfortunately that is always the immediate and default action of both Groundspeak and GAGB.


Otherwise next week it'll be something else and another guideline will be added.
As you're new you won't be aware that that's what happens. The list of rules introduced by Groundspeak and GAGB since I started caching in 2003 has become longer and longer, from a dozen or so fairly common-sense suggestions to the present ever-growing diverse and partly unpublished rules that there now are.

I would love to see a single coherent list of every rule which must be complied with in order to get a cache published on Groundspeak in the UK. I'm sure it would be many tens of pages long. Perhaps then cachers would appreciate the volume of restrictions.

I can understand why Groundspeak introduces more rules. It's a commercial company and in the litigious USA it feels a need to protect itself against law suits. What I don't understand is why GAGB - an organisation which purports to help GB cachers yet does nothing in that area - helps it do it.

[Alan White]

guideline explicitly prohibiting
That's an oxymoron. A guideline can only suggest, advise or recommend. To ban something one needs a law or a rule.

[markandlynn]

Grounsdspeak have allready created there own rule so any further guidelines in that regard are pretty pointless.

Even if the fake sign is in the middle of a wood (found one like this) its now banned by GC i fully expect that ban to be country wide allready

I believe the existing GAGB guidelines allready cover this type of placement so no need for anything new.

[markandlynn]

Allthough the following links provide details it quite obviously does not mention fake signs. Haing read them it does appear its illegal or at the very least they have an act they could prosecute you against or officially place a warning on your record against.



http://www.norfolkfireservice.gov.uk/hydrants.html#law


http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=7144

NB all the fireservice websites have the same stuff on them :)

[martybartfast]

I'm not convinced that we need a guideline/rule for this, as it seems pretty common sense to me and a reviewer shouldn't need a written rule to justify refusing/archiving something like this.

However if there is to be something then it should be phrased in general terms such that it can be used to cover an cache which may interfere with any safety equipment/services, and not be specific to this one instance (which is going to be pretty rare).

[The Gaggle]

Hi all

I though I'd throw in my concerns about this having spent many 3 o'clocks in the morning searching for yellow H signs.

This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (a Fire Service).

We do have maps of the location of all hydrants but much like caching we have the cords/junction info but have to conduct a search once we get to GZ - it's not always immediately obvious believe me!!!! Fire engines carry a limited amount of water (approx 1600ish litres) so finding a hydrant quickly is usually one of the first concerns when attending as fire.

A fake sign would definitely cause confusion, especially if in a remote location where the hydrants are few and far between. The numbers on the signs also have very specific meanings: distance away from the sign and size of water main, which obviously are important pieces of information for us.

I’ll stay out of the rule/guideline debate but would be massively against this type of cache, and like others have said I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.

Cheers

[Sven]

We do have maps of the location of all hydrants


Never knew that!



I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.

Knew that though :)

[HouseofDragons]

There are some things which ought to be common sense. Creating a fake hydrant sign is one of them IMO.

(and I always wondered what the numbers on the sign meant!)

[Andalusite]

Speaking as a reviewer, I'd like to add the following to the discussion;



1. In light of the complaint by South and West Wales fire and Rescue Service, the concerns of one Fire service are likely to be similar to those of other such organisations.



It seems prudent to be proactive in addressing those concerns.





2. There is no consensus as to what is 'sensible' or 'common sense' :wacko:.




If is left to individuals to determine what is sensible then on occasion their enthusiasm for hiding something that is different and/or clever can get a bit out of control.




When it is left to me and the other Groundspeak reviewers to decide what we each consider to be sensible in our own territories, we get accused in forums (including this one) of being power-mad, inconsistent despots working to hidden guidelines and secret agendas :eek:.




It would therefore be useful (an open and transparent) if there were some publicly-stated policy, advice or note that I could point people to, and which cachers could hopefully read before going to the effort of sourcing and placing a cache disguised as a fake fire hydrant sign.





3. More guidelines mean more work for me as a reviewer, and probably mean less fun for everyone as a player.



Guidelines are sometimes a bit 'sledgehammer and nut'. If only to make my life as easy as possible, 'rule creep' should be avoided as much as possible.


If the decision reached is to give some form of advice or guidance, I'd rather see something narrow and specific like "please don't hide caches disguised as fire hydrant signs, or place caches that cause damage to fire hydrant signs or alter the information they provide" rather than a broad "Don't hide caches in such a manner as to potentially inconvenience the emergency services".



If it is decided that action is required, it might be more practical to add any advice as an addendum to the cacher's code, perhaps to the …”Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm” section (https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/geocachers-code-of-conduct/), rather than create a new guideline specific to Fire Hydrant signs.







Regards,




Andalusite

[Alan White]

Grounsdspeak have allready created there own rule so any further guidelines in that regard are pretty pointless.
This is a very important point. Groundspeak - especially the UK reviewers - have shown many times that they're perfectly capable of making up any rule they like in order to enforce their view of how the game should be played. They certainly don't need any help from GAGB.

So why is GAGB proposing a new rule? Groundspeak doesn't need it; other listing sites will decide for themselves what to do; and GAGB doesn't place caches. Of course, the logical end for this discussion is that GAGB doesn't need to have any rules about placing caches. Then it would have more time to be an organisation for cachers rather than a rule-making body.


Even if the fake sign is in the middle of a wood (found one like this) its now banned by GC
Yes, that's the trouble with rules: they're inflexible and often foolishly applied. I'm reminded of the last foot and mouth outbreak when UK reviewers summarily disabled all caches within the controlled area, even if they were in an urban setting which hasn't seen a farm animal in a hundred years.

[DrDick&Vick]

This is a very important point. Groundspeak - especially the UK reviewers - have shown many times that they're perfectly capable of making up any rule they like in order to enforce their view of how the game should be played. They certainly don't need any help from GAGB.

So why is GAGB proposing a new rule? Groundspeak doesn't need it; other listing sites will decide for themselves what to do; and GAGB doesn't place caches. Of course, the logical end for this discussion is that GAGB doesn't need to have any rules about placing caches. Then it would have more time to be an organisation for cachers rather than a rule-making body.


Yes, that's the trouble with rules: they're inflexible and often foolishly applied. I'm reminded of the last foot and mouth outbreak when UK reviewers summarily disabled all caches within the controlled area, even if they were in an urban setting which hasn't seen a farm animal in a hundred years.

I am probably wasting my time typing this BUT once again I will repeat it, the GAGB DO NOT make any rules at all, we post guidelines which are not mandatory to follow.

[The Hornet]

I am probably wasting my time typing this BUT once again I will repeat it, the GAGB DO NOT make any rules at all, we post guidelines which are not mandatory to follow.
If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

Why the reluctance to recognise this?

[Mongoose39uk]

If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

Why the reluctance to recognise this?

Not all of them do the urban guideline is not used by several GC reviewers. The guidelines are not just for GC.com

[Sven]

Not all of them do the urban guideline is not used by several GC reviewers. The guidelines are not just for GC.com

Depends if you're on the blacklist or not. :ph34r:

[t.a.folk]

That's an oxymoron. A guideline can only suggest, advise or recommend. To ban something one needs a law or a rule.
Suggestion ,advice and recommendation are some interpretations for the meaning of "guideline".
Instruction ,rule and regulation are some others .

[Lord Boogie]

If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

Why the reluctance to recognise this?

This is one of my pet hates with the GAGB. I know the intention from GAGB is that they are guidelines, published in order to help new geocachers benefit from our experience and, ahem, common sense. However groundspeak reviewers play fast and loose with these "guidelines" and point people in the direction of the GAGB when somebody challenges a reviewer. I have had a cache refused on the strength that I did not comply with a GAGB "rule". I got over it but it did bug me at the time and still does when I see it time and time again. IMHO:wacko:

[DrDick&Vick]

and unfortunately the GAGB is left somewhere between a ROCK and a VERY HARD PLACE.

Our intentions have always been that they are there to guide and help cachers that do not have the total knowledge that some have gained, we have no control whatsoever over the GC Reviewers and how they interpret them.

[Mongoose39uk]

Just because some reviewers see them as written in stone, does that mean that our members give up their voice and the possibility of influencing them to treat them as guidelines.

They are guidelines if some (not all) reviewers choose to treat them as rules we cannot force their hand, we can try to influence though. Some they will always treat as rules though.

If anyone has had a cache refused on the grounds of it being against our guidelines feel free to contact us and we will try and mediate.

[Lord Boogie]

I agree safety is a valid reason to consider making a guidline but in this instance I do believe it is covered. If a reviewer from a listing site wants a guideline or rule then they should do that internally. If it is deemed a good idea then listing sites would be crazy not to, wouldn't they? :dunno:

That is also the crux of why I wanted to know the origin of the request.

So I recommend rather than create a new guideline/rule or modify any existing ones we should create a new document with a non ambiguous title listing things we suggest a kind of geocachers best practice (a term oft used by industry when trying to negate the need for legislation) that way it could not be interpreted as a rule and we can get some really helpful advice into it. The need for GAGB guidelines would be superseded by this new document.

Maybe the GAGB should also consider sending cease and desist requests to listing sites reviewers who enforce guidelines as rules. The geocaching community could then take the GAGB more seriously as a body that represent them?

[Sven]

and unfortunately the GAGB is left somewhere between a ROCK and a VERY HARD PLACE.

Our intentions have always been that they are there to guide and help cachers that do not have the total knowledge that some have gained, we have no control whatsoever over the GC Reviewers and how they interpret them.

I think if you made the stance VERY clear with a disclaimer within the guidelines (at the bottom) that these are only guidelines and you think each cache should be taken on it's own merits then you wouldn't fall foul of this. The reviewers then cannot hide behind you, they have to then quantify their decision!

My own example of having the urban "guideline" imposed in a rural location is a very good indication of this?

Edt: Clarification

I was all for it until I saw this;


Even if the fake sign is in the middle of a wood (found one like this) its now banned by GC i fully expect that ban to be country wide allready


Which makes sense, I'd have no problem with a fire hydrant at the top of Snowdon, for example.....Blanket rules cannot fit every scenario and provision needs to be made to take each cache on it's own merits...

This would prevent prejudice against individual cachers and reviewers couldn't hide behind rules because they feel someone should be penalised. Well that's the theory anyway...

[Palujia]

This makes great sense - I am happy to agree with Sven on this one :applause:

[Colin (The Wobbly Club)]

For once I am in agreement. It should stop any arguments over rules verses guidelines.

[dodgydaved]

For once I am in agreement. It should stop any arguments over rules verses guidelines.


Certainly should as far as GAGB are concerned - but until the listing sites also
accept that some of their "Guidelines" are not advisory but are mandatory "Rules" or "Regulations" it will not make the lives of the reviewers or COs any easier.............

[Alan White]

If GAGB intends the things listed at https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/) to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
"No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
"No cache should be placed in or on..."
"Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
"Fences should never be crossed..."
are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.

[Happy Humphrey]

If GAGB intends the things listed at https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/) to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
"No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
"No cache should be placed in or on..."
"Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
"Fences should never be crossed..."
are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.
Intentionally or otherwise, I think that the wording is fine as far as defining guidelines is concerned. The word "should" is used, which is a "guideline" word. Where I've seen rules defined, the word used is "shall" (
"No cache shall be placed in or on...").

However, I'd like to see these guidelines rewritten as a "guide to best practice". If a reviewer feels that a cache listing falls too far short of "best practice" then he might ask the submitter to make changes.

[dodgydaved]

If GAGB intends the things listed at https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/) to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
"No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
"No cache should be placed in or on..."
"Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
"Fences should never be crossed..."
are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.




The they should be stated as rules.

FWIW, a quote from Wikipedia - the emphases are mine:


"A guideline is a statement by which to determine a course of action. A guideline aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine or sound practice. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. Guidelines are not binding and are not enforced. ( U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/trm/TRMGlossaryPage.asp )"

[Alan White]

The word "should" is used, which is a "guideline" word. Where I've seen rules defined, the word used is "shall"
I knew someone would comment on that :).

Many hours and bytes have been expended in discussions about the intended meaning of "should" in rules and standards. Some people write and read it to mean "shall", "must" or "may"; others interpret it differently (I struggle for examples here because "should" really doesn't convey anything but "must"). According to both of the fairly large dictionaries I have to hand, "should" is the past of "shall" and therefore conveys exactly the meaning you think it doesn't :D.

The best that can be said is that the use of "should" is almost always ambiguous and is therefore best avoided in favour of stronger or weaker words depending on the intention.

For guidelines, words such as "consider", "recommend", "discourage", "encourage" are more appropriate. For rules, "must", "do not", "ensure", "disallowed" will be more likely to ensure that the reader understands the meaning.

Now see which of those words have been chosen for the "guidelines" on many caching sites and the intention of the authors is clear: caching currently has rules not guidelines.

I entirely agree about the "best practice" approach. Recently I contributed to something similar on OCUK.

[markandlynn]

This makes great sense - I am happy to agree with Sven on this one :applause:

Ditto best suggestion for a change ive seen for ages :socool:

[Happy Humphrey]

I'll concede to Alan on that point, and agree that we should have a statement of best practice so that a cacher can refer to it and be fairly sure that their cache has been placed properly (in the view of the GAGB).

The best practice guide should include a disclaimer, explaining that it constitutes a "GAGB best practice guide" only, and following it doesn't guarantee that your cache will be listed anywhere. Conversely, ignoring the guide doesn't guarantee that your listing will be refused, as the GAGB has no control over the listing sites and has an advisory role only.

If (for instance) a Geocaching.com reviewer then refuses your listing because the cache "breaks GAGB rules", you could point out the "advisory role" nature of the GAGB and ask where the rule exists on Groundspeak's own website.

[markandlynn]

I can't speak for welshcaseys but I would certainly expect the hydrants to be recorded and mapped and for the fire service control centre to be able to view on maps the location of the incident and the location of the nearest hydrants and to direct the firemen to them..

Indeed they do with there own custom overlay

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/independently-sourced-data/example1.html

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/images/userImages/misc/business/licences/use-of-os-data/p12-map.jpg

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Indeed they do with there own custom overlay

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/independently-sourced-data/example1.html

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/images/userImages/misc/business/licences/use-of-os-data/p12-map.jpg

So will a Serving or former Fire Services Officer, who has actively been tasked on a Pump. Confirm that on arrival at a location, the Drive who is tasked with making the connection from the Hydrant to the Appliance. Is going to contact the Control Centre, to confirm that the Hydrant Sign, 4m from the Appliance is "Genuine"? Or is the Driver just going to presume so, and act accordingly, so delaying connection, before contacting Control to find out where the Hydrant actually is located?

There are always 2 ways of looking at things, and the West and Mid Wales Fire and Rescue Service obviously took the second view!

And a Question for the GAGB Committee, can all the posts, discussing what is a Guideline and what is a Rule, also those discussing who requested the Guideline. Be moved to their own separate topic?

As this topic was supposed to be about consulting about a request generated by the West and Mid Wales Fire and Rescue Service on Safety grounds.

Note to those who will vocally complain that a GC Reviewer is trying to Censor discussion! I HAVE ASKED THAT THE POSTS BE MOVED TO A SEPARATE TOPIC! That's not censorship, just a request to split out a separate discussion into its own Topic to allow it to flow unimpeded!

[markandlynn]

Hi all

I though I'd throw in my concerns about this having spent many 3 o'clocks in the morning searching for yellow H signs.

This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (a Fire Service).

We do have maps of the location of all hydrants but much like caching we have the cords/junction info but have to conduct a search once we get to GZ - it's not always immediately obvious believe me!!!! Fire engines carry a limited amount of water (approx 1600ish litres) so finding a hydrant quickly is usually one of the first concerns when attending as fire.

A fake sign would definitely cause confusion, especially if in a remote location where the hydrants are few and far between. The numbers on the signs also have very specific meanings: distance away from the sign and size of water main, which obviously are important pieces of information for us.

I’ll stay out of the rule/guideline debate but would be massively against this type of cache, and like others have said I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.

Cheers

The answer to one part of Deci's post above from page 4 of this thread.

[The Gaggle]

Not quite sure what you're asking here but I'm happy to comment with my personel opinion.

I also support moving all the "rule/guidline" and "must/should/will" stuff to another thread!!!!

Generally speaking it is usually the driver of the appliance who will locate and "run out" from the hydrant. In the inital stages of an incident he is a very, very busy guy!! (no sexism comments please ;)) I'll not bore you with all his specific responsibilities but if the appliance is crewed with minimum numbers his tasks are delegated out to about a minmum of three people as more become available.

Different Services have different arrangments for locating a hydrant, most have some sort of mapping sofware available but its ususlly not the first port of call as it can often be outdated. Looking/searching for the hydrant signs is usually the first locating method, including keeping an eye out whilst driving in.

If the incident is located in an urban (I know......) area there will usually be plenty of hydrants available, and they tend to be in specific places - junctions etc. However they can still be a fair distance apart - read 50m plus.

Have a look next time you are out and about in a rural area to see how easy to find and how many hydrants are about - you'll be surprised how hard it is.

We do of course have other ways of getting water especially for larger incidents but a hydrant is usually the first port of call.

So what I'm getting at is an operationlal incident is difficult to deal with enough, and in the above text I'm only talking locating a hydrant. Putting an extra f##kup factor in there is just not a good idea, true its one which is fairly easy to overcome but why do it in the first place?

I'm still a Serving Fire Officer but I do a lot more pointing and directing nowadays, so it has been a while since I've been on a pump. If any other collegues have anything they want to say, or correct, feel free.

Cheers

Edit just to clarify - I'm massivley against this type of cache or any on "emergency signage"

[Alan White]

Have a look next time you are out and about in a rural area to see how easy to find and how many hydrants are about - you'll be surprised how hard it is.
That was really why I made my statement many posts ago that I'd be surprised if that was the method used. In the days before we had powerful computers that fit in our pocket and have maps and overlays of almost anything we could want then, yes, a sign by the side of the road was the best, possibly only, way of directing firemen to a hydrant. But today...?


I'm massivley against this type of cache I'm massively against many different types of cache, but we can't and shouldn't :D have a rule against certain types of cache just because some of us don't like them.


I also support moving all the "rule/guidline" and "must/should/will" stuff to another thread!!!!The thread is about the proposition of a rule: you can't disassociate the introduction of the rule from its wording. The rule has to be either specific in both intent and wording, possibly requiring another rule later for something very similar, or sufficiently broad to ensure that it resolves this particular issue but is so vague that no-one can understand what it means.

Despite this thread now being on its seventh page, I think I'm the only person to have actually proposed a form of words. I don't think there's any need for yet another rule but at least I've come up with it :D.

[Happy Humphrey]

Note to those who will vocally complain that a GC Reviewer is trying to Censor discussion! I HAVE ASKED THAT THE POSTS BE MOVED TO A SEPARATE TOPIC! That's not censorship, just a request to split out a separate discussion into its own Topic to allow it to flow unimpeded!
I'd taken it as read that we'd already agreed that there is nothing to be said in favour of fake fire hydrant signs. So to discuss the merits or otherwise of such caches seems a bit pointless and I don't think the aim of the consultation is to decide whether or not they should be allowed.

So, it's the action to be taken that is open to debate. The consensus appears to favour a more generalised approach rather than a specific fire-hydrant-cache ban. But if the wording is agreed by the GAGB committee and included in the current guidelines, it gives rise to the question about who will take action should another case crop up, and how will the GAGB guidelines be used? Or perhaps mis-used?

As you seem to be rather angry about the subject, perhaps you might start a new thread and suggest a better way forward? I can't think of the title for an alternative thread as this one seems to be staying generally on topic.

[Alan White]

I'd taken it as read that we'd already agreed that there is nothing to be said in favour of fake fire hydrant signs.
I've agreed no such thing :). In my view there's nothing in favour of caches on parking machines, caches bolted into fences, caches inside electrical/gas cabinets, caches in dangerous locations, or caches in muggle-infested places, but I don't go suggesting that all those caches should be banned.


So to discuss the merits or otherwise of such caches seems a bit pointless and I don't think the aim of the consultation is to decide whether or not they should be allowed.
The OP has obviously been very carefully worded: it says "We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs". It doesn't say what that guideline might be and certainly doesn't suggest allowing or disallowing such caches. Perhaps the discussion would be more productive if it did?


how will the GAGB guidelines be used? Or perhaps mis-used?
I think history tells us the answer to that, at least as far as Groundspeak is concerned :D.

[Happy Humphrey]

I've agreed no such thing :). In my view there's nothing in favour of caches on parking machines, caches bolted into fences, caches inside electrical/gas cabinets, caches in dangerous locations, or caches in muggle-infested places, but I don't go suggesting that all those caches should be banned.
Hmm...yes, but I said that we'd agreed that there was nothing to be said in favour of them, not that we'd agreed that they have to be banned.

People on here have been trying to illustrate how the fire hydrant sign caches could cause problems but I didn't think we need to discuss that as it seems pretty obvious. Mancunian was arguing that discussing anything else was off-topic.

[Alan White]

I said that we'd agreed that there was nothing to be said in favour of them, not that we'd agreed that they have to be banned.
OK, I'll be clearer then :). I'm not not in favour of them. How's that :confused: I like innovative and imaginative hides, possibly because I don't have the imagination to come up with them myself. I applaud cachers who are able to enliven the experience and make me think "Wow, that's clever" when I find such a cache.

And obviously my tongue-in-cheek quote from the OP was just a little too subtle: it's quite obvious that a consultation on a guideline about fake fire hydrant signs has only one intention :(.

[martybartfast]

it's quite obvious that a consultation on a guideline about fake fire hydrant signs has only one intention :(.

No it isn't.

[Alan White]

No it isn't.
Perhaps you could expand on that by saying what you think the intention of the consultation is?

Even better, perhaps the GAGB committee could say what the purpose of the consultation is?

[martybartfast]

Perhaps you could expand on that by saying what you think the intention of the consultation is?


Well you're the one who thinks it's obvious perhaps you could share your enlightened view with those of us who don't have your insight?

But here's my (un-cynical) take on it:


A communication was initiated by the Fire Service, which resulted in someone (it doesn't matter who) approaching the GAGB with a view to perhaps including something in their 'guidelines'.
The GAGB has asked it's members for their thoughts on the matter before it takes any action.
There seems to have been a concensus so far as HH said earlier.
Hopefully the views of the membership will be taken into account when a decision is made and any action is/isnt taken - I guess we'll find out, but I'm prepared to wait and see before making snide remarks.



What should the GAGB have done in your view after the initial approach?


Ignored the it and done nothing.
Decided behind closed doors what they were going to do without asking the members.



There has been much debate recently during the elections about openness and consultation, and the approach here seems to be addressing both of these points.

Edit to add: guidelines is quoted 'cos I don't want to go down the whole is it a rule or a guideline sidetrack again.

[keehotee]

The thread is about the proposition of a rule: you can't disassociate the introduction of the rule from its wording. The rule has to be either specific in both intent and wording, possibly requiring another rule later for something very similar, or sufficiently broad to ensure that it resolves this particular issue but is so vague that no-one can understand what it means.

It doesn't matter how they are worded - or whether the GAGB call them rules, guidelines, THE COMMANDMENTS, or John, Paul, George and Ringo - because the GAGB is not, so far as I am aware, in the business of reviewing and publishing caches.

If you have an issue with a reviewer or a cache listing site using the GAGB guidelines as rules, take it up with them, NOT the GAGB!

[Alan White]

Well you're the one who thinks it's obvious perhaps you could share your enlightened view with those of us who don't have your insight?
I don't think your aggressive tone is either necessary or helpful, but I will try to answer your question.

GAGB has a long history of making rules: it's the only thing they do. These rules are always made in the aftermath of some problem and they think that "something has to be done", that something always being the prohibition or severe restriction on whatever is believed to have caused the problem.

The most recent problem was the Wetherby "bomb" after which GAGB hastily introduced a rule which was immediately and roundly condemned as being unworkable and ineffective. The resulting belated consultation massaged the rule into something which was no more effective but was at least workable.

The next time there's a problem GAGB, all credit to it, launches the consultation first. But the consultation can have only one of two outcomes: introduce a rule or don't introduce a rule. As not introducing a rule means ignoring the problem then that's not a practical option and the consultation can only result in a rule.

And I'm still the only person to have proposed such a rule, even though I don't think we need one. Why do others not propose their own version of the rule which can then be discussed?

[Alan White]

It doesn't matter how they are worded
Of course it matters how they're worded, not only to ensure that the intended meaning is conveyed but also because, if worded correctly, the problem of "a cache listing site using the GAGB guidelines as rules" doesn't arise.

Example:
"Cache containers should not be placed inside a polythene bag."
This can be interpreted as meaning either that caches must not be in a bag or that it's better if they're not. Thus a listing site can choose to use that rule to deny publication. If the intention is to discourage the use of plastic bags then the wording might be: "The use of plastic bags to wrap caches is discouraged". A listing site would then have a difficult task of using that guideline to refuse the cache. Thus the problem of listing sites misunderstanding GAGB is very much GAGB's problem and is easily solved by greater clarity in the wording.

[Alan White]

I'm going to try to move the consultation forward by proposing some rules/guidelines/whatever for discussion.

1. (No rule/guideline is required.)*
2. Caches must not be placed on, in or as safety equipment such as fire hydrants, life-saving rings etc
3. Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided.

Feel free to discuss, vote on, modify or add to these suggestions.

* I deliberately haven't attempted to quantify why a rule might not be required. You might it think it unnecessary because it's obvious that a cache shouldn't be in such a place; you might think it's none of GAGB's business; you might think a listing site will abuse it, etc.

[simplysup]

2. Caches must not be placed on, in or as safety equipment such as fire hydrants, life-saving rings etc


I've not given this enough thought yet to decide which, if any, of the options you propose I would favour. However I would make a small amendment to the above option, for clarity:

"2. Caches must not be placed on or in safety equipment such as fire hydrants, life-saving rings etc., nor should they be constructed to resemble such equipment."

[Happy Humphrey]

That shows how difficult it is to get the wording right! The cache in question wasn't a fake fire hydrant ( or on, or inside one).

[markandlynn]

Perhaps you could expand on that by saying what you think the intention of the consultation is?


I believe the puprpose of the request is to get the GAGB to support groundspeaks stance on this.


Allthough i dont believe we need a guideline id go with

1. Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. Caches hidden that could confuse others for example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake electrical box near to a real one are discouraged.

This leaves scope to allow the fire hydrant in a wood type of cache.

[t.a.folk]

I've not given this enough thought yet to decide which, if any, of the options you propose I would favour. However I would make a small amendment to the above option, for clarity:

"2. Caches must not be placed on or in safety equipment such as fire hydrants, life-saving rings etc., nor should they be constructed to resemble such equipment."

Best we've read so far .
Concise ,so we read it all without a yawn factor, without ambiguity.

[Happy Humphrey]

Best we've read so far .
Concise ,so we read it all without a yawn factor, without ambiguity.
Yes, but as I pointed out above it doesn't cover the situation which caused the thread to be posted, i.e. fake signs.
I think that this one is closer;


Allthough i dont believe we need a guideline id go with

1. Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. Caches hidden that could confuse others for example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake electrical box near to a real one are discouraged.

This leaves scope to allow the fire hydrant in a wood type of cache.
However, genuine fire hydrants do exist in woods (there are a lot of them around here!) and fake signs there could mislead as badly as in an urban situation.
There are innumerable situations where a fake item could cause danger or confusion, or encourage people into causing unforeseen problems. It's not going to be possible to list them all (or anticipate what people are going to come up with in the future) so it might be best to just keep any rule / guideline /whatever quite general, to encourage the cache hider to step back a bit and think about what they are planning from a non-geocaching point of view.
That's why a "guide to best practice" would be better than a list of do's and don'ts. Perhaps an appendix can be attached containing a list of cases that have caused particular problems. That would cover both the clear and unambiguous advice side of things and the detailed example.

So (off the top of my head) it would be something like;


The GAGB recognises that there are creative and unusual cache hiding techniques which provide a lot of entertainment for hider and seeker alike. We encourage the use of these techniques, but urge caution when creating "cheeky" hides (such as fake items on public display, fake signs and so on). Before going ahead with such a cache, take a step back and think in a non-geocaching way. Could the item be mistaken for the real thing by a non-cacher? If so, what is the worst that could happen and would I be happy to deal with the consequences? Every once in a while the worst does happen; see our list of examples of real incidents in Appendix A.

The reviewer can have a list of "banned" hides and rules if he likes, but the cache hider merely needs to use common sense; which just might need a bit of encouragement and guidance. And the GAGB is here to provide for the cacher, not the reviewer.

[Alan White]

The GAGB recognises that there are creative and unusual cache hiding techniques which provide a lot of entertainment for hider and seeker alike. We encourage the use of these techniques, but urge caution when creating "cheeky" hides (such as fake items on public display, fake signs and so on). Before going ahead with such a cache, take a step back and think in a non-geocaching way. Could the item be mistaken for the real thing by a non-cacher? If so, what is the worst that could happen and would I be happy to deal with the consequences? Every once in a while the worst does happen; see our list of examples of real incidents in Appendix A.
Brilliant :lol:. Much better than anything I've come up with, and it covers so many things in such few words. The educational key is "take a step back and think in a non-geocaching way". I feel that often cachers think only about other cachers and don't consider how unusual our activities might seem to non-cachers, and that this is the cause of many of the problems we experience.

I suggest one tweak which would make it even more useful for many other scenarios: instead of "Could the item be mistaken for the real thing by a non-cacher?" (which restricts it to fake items), perhaps "Could the cache or hiding place be mistaken for something else, or mislead or cause concern for a non-cacher?".


And the GAGB is here to provide for the cacher, not the reviewer.
Amen. If GAGB did that I might even join :D.

[markandlynn]

Brilliant :lol:. Much better than anything I've come up with, and it covers so many things in such few words. The educational key is "take a step back and think in a non-geocaching way". I feel that often cachers think only about other cachers and don't consider how unusual our activities might seem to non-cachers, and that this is the cause of many of the problems we experience.

I suggest one tweak which would make it even more useful for many other scenarios: instead of "Could the item be mistaken for the real thing by a non-cacher?" (which restricts it to fake items), perhaps "Could the cache or hiding place be mistaken for something else, or mislead or cause concern for a non-cacher?".


Amen. If GAGB did that I might even join :D.

I too like the sound of the above, thank you to AW for starting the thread moving again with a proposal.:applause:

[Mongoose39uk]

HH

I am liking the idea of best practice and the appendix with examples.

I think it may be worth having somewhere in all this, a line suggesting that if the person who is thinking of pacing a cache and they are unsure if there may be some negative impact that they contact a reviewer on their listing site of choice.

Or even take it to the forums to see what others think, though I guess that could give the game away for finders.

[t.a.folk]

Yes, but as I pointed out above it doesn't cover the situation which caused the thread to be posted, i.e. fake signs.
I think that this one is closer;


To our understanding the part of suggestion example we were praising does cover fake signs (Don't know how to do multi quotes so relevant phrase copied below)

"nor should they be constructed to resemble such equipment."

The suggestion you favour introduces itself with an aspect of caching that is ,in our opinion,subjective ,and also erelevant regards to the safety aspect of whether fake signs can, or should, be used as part of cach hides .

But just our opinion L.O.L.

[Lord Boogie]

I believe the puprpose of the request is to get the GAGB to support groundspeaks stance on this.


Allthough i dont believe we need a guideline id go with

1. Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. Caches hidden that could confuse others for example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake electrical box near to a real one are discouraged.

This leaves scope to allow the fire hydrant in a wood type of cache.

I am still of the opinion that a guideline is not needed but I too see the quoted text as a good compromise.

I think Deci should take some time to read the posts in this thread, he may better understand what is being conveyed. Although I suspect that we have already strayed "off topic" according to his agenda IMO. Lets not loose sight of the thread title by it's very wording it is specifically related to fire hydrant signs. Thus I think the consensus is we do not want/need a guideline for a specific otherwise we would end up eventually with a Britannic volume nobody will read.

So may we end this consultation as a no and open another consultation as to what guideline and how it can be modified to encompass this and other likely issues?

apologies for length ;)

[Mongoose39uk]

To quote the OP

This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

[dodgydaved]

I, almost, promise this will be my last word on this subject.

A close relative of mine recently appeared in the Appeal Court and was told by the Lord Cheif Justice, when quoting guidelines for sentencing:

"They are Guidelines, Mr XXXXXX, not tramlines!"

[The Hornet]

How about dumping an ever growing list of specific proscriptive rules and guidelines and replacing them with something like this:


The Geocachers Code.

Safe · Legal · Ethical

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

Not endanger myself or others.
Observe all laws and rules of the area.
Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.
Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment.
Be considerate of others.
Protect the integrity of the gamepiece.


Where did I find these? Try here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/geocachers-code-of-conduct/)

[Happy Humphrey]

That's certainly the type of thing, but I feel that it needs a rewrite to reflect changes in emphasis since the original version was written back in 2004.

[Ve8]

How about dumping an ever growing list of specific proscriptive rules and guidelines and replacing them with something like this:

Quote:
The Geocachers Code.

Safe · Legal · Ethical

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

Not endanger myself or others.
Observe all laws and rules of the area.
Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate.
Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm.
Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment.
Be considerate of others.
Protect the integrity of the gamepiece.
Where did I find these? Try here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-geocaching/geocachers-code-of-conduct/)

The original is here: http://www.geocreed.info/, IMO the GAGB edition should be linking back to the original source - in fact it's a requirement under the creative commons licence the creed was published under.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/). You may freely use and share it long as you credit www.geocreed.info (http://www.geocreed.info) and do not alter, transform or build upon the work! Please feel free to link to this site from other websites.Still, an excellent example of cut 'n paste.

[Lord Boogie]

To quote the OP

This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

Didn't mean close it now! It was a suggested outcome for consideration.

[Lord Boogie]

The original is here: http://www.geocreed.info/, IMO the GAGB edition should be linking back to the original source - in fact it's a requirement under the creative commons licence the creed was published under.

Still, an excellent example of cut 'n paste.

I can see a credit to the original authors at the bottom but no weblink.

[team tisri]

I'm really no fan of rules and always prefer to keep as small and tight a set of rules as is humanly possible.

That said where critical safety is concerned it seems easier to just make a simple "thou shalt not" rule and be done with it. If we allow fake fire hydrants where do we draw the line? Will we allow fake life rings beside rivers, fake defibrillators outside shopping malls, fake emergency help points?

There's a cache not all that far from me that is a film pot hidden in the space behind an existing life ring beside a river. It's not hurting the life ring and unless you were hunting a cache you wouldn't even think to look in that space. If someone is in trouble in the river the life ring works as expected. A film pot at the back of a fire hydrant isn't going to harm anything either.

When something that might be expected to be a safety feature turns out to be a "Geocache, contents harmless" the delay caused by whoever it is finding the fake, trying to operate it only to realise it's a fake and then go to find a real alternative could make the difference, quite literally, between life and death.

This is a completely different scenario to the idea of a 5/5 rated cache. Yes, someone might get hurt attempting an extreme cache but they take part in the cache willingly. If someone's house is on fire and the fire service loses time dealing with what they thought was a hydrant but was really a geocache the victims weren't willing participants. There lies the crucial difference.

[martybartfast]

If we allow fake fire hydrants where do we draw the line? Will we allow fake life rings beside rivers, fake defibrillators outside shopping malls, fake emergency help points?


Just to be clear it's not a fake hydrant, it's a fake sign, like one of these:

http://www.freefoto.com/images/41/04/41_04_56---Fire-hydrant-sign_web.jpg

But I think the same principles should apply to such signage as would apply to the actual safety equipment.

[Lord Boogie]

Just to be clear it's not a fake hydrant, it's a fake sign, like one of these:

http://www.freefoto.com/images/41/04/41_04_56---Fire-hydrant-sign_web.jpg

But I think the same principles should apply to such signage as would apply to the actual safety equipment.

This actually seems to be the consensus, a specific rule / guideline is not the way forward. A more general all encompassing guideline is.

Although I am starting to think that being as serious as life or death and risks of serious injury should be dealt with by listings sites first and foremost. Something as crucial as this needs to be a rule not a guideline. And as it is oft said the GAGB make guidelines not rules.

Maybe we should consider an open letter to all listings sites asking officially for this to be addressed?

[dodgydaved]

Something as crucial as this needs to be a rule not a guideline. And as it is oft said the GAGB make guidelines not rules.




How true!!

[Happy Humphrey]

This actually seems to be the consensus, a specific rule / guideline is not the way forward. A more general all encompassing guideline is.

Although I am starting to think that being as serious as life or death and risks of serious injury should be dealt with by listings sites first and foremost. Something as crucial as this needs to be a rule not a guideline. And as it is oft said the GAGB make guidelines not rules.

Maybe we should consider an open letter to all listings sites asking officially for this to be addressed?
If it's a rule for a particular listing site to disallow fire hydrant signs, then fair enough; they can make their own rules. Although if the type of hide isn't mentioned in the listing (and that's quite likely in the fake sign scenario) I don't know how a reviewer would enforce such a rule.

And if the rule is "no fake fire hydrant signs", a mischievous cacher might place a fake Stop Valve (SV) sign instead. Not quite as bad perhaps, but if there's a major mains burst in the area, the fake sign could lead to more damage and expense, and possible safety issues. Or perhaps a fake street name sign which leads to an ambulance crew getting confused. You could think up endless scenarios.

But we're bringing the discussion around to the start again, so I guess that this thread has run its course. Rather than go in circles for ever more, perhaps the GAGB committee could close the consultation? We've already discussed various options, my favourite being a new "best practice" guide which also covers all these types of safety issues in an educational way, and the listings sites having their own rules about fake signs. Now it's up to the GAGB to take forward their preferred option.

[Palujia]

As can be seen from this thread - its good to get everyone involved in consultations regarding serious matters such as safety issues and guidelines do not seem to be able to solve this. A rule has to be accepted by all and the only ones who can enforce this are the cache reviewers (on whichever site they work)

[team tisri]

Just to be clear it's not a fake hydrant, it's a fake sign, like one of these:

http://www.freefoto.com/images/41/04/41_04_56---Fire-hydrant-sign_web.jpg

But I think the same principles should apply to such signage as would apply to the actual safety equipment.

I'd agree, unless I misunderstood the fundamental problem the original issue was that the fire service were confused by such a sign. If it's close enough to a genuine sign to confuse the fire service then it's a potential safety hazard.

[DizzyPair]

.
Guidelines or Rules?
The discussion / argument goes on, and on, and on, and on. To the point where people do not even bother reading what you're arguing about.

A Guideline or Rule is pointless if people - LOTS of people - don't know about it!
Consider how many people go caching, and compare that number to the ones that come on here.
There must be thousands that do not even know that there are Guidelines and Rules.

Something needs to be done about he passage of INFORMATION.

The SEEKER is a great magazine. Maybe an article about recent problems could be put in there.

But....If people, and there are lots and lots of new people, do not know about the GAGB and do not know about The SEEKER, then again that is not getting the information to the people that count....That's everyone.

Events are a good way to pass information. People chat about all sorts, but often the important things are forgotten.
I see that on each event listing, there is an entry saying that the event has been added to the GAGB calender.

Why not add a bit to each of these entries with a short article about recent problems?

Lots of people will see this, and it might get them to discuss it at the event.
This would be a free method of passing important information.

As someone else has said, it should be more about 'best practice' than 'These are the Rules'.

Don't bother responding to me with your multi quotes or comments about grammar etc because we're 'cachers' and are going out caching for the day.
.
.

[The Wombles]

Thanks for the comments in this consultation. We will now consider these before proposing next steps.