GAGB forums

[Alan White]

I understand from elsewhere that GAGB is proposing removing forum access from those who aren't GAGB members. As a person who had some influence in the GAGB hosting a discussion forum for all GB cachers I'm surprised at this proposal.

The service was provided at a time when relations between GB cachers and Groundspeak were at an all-time low and the point was to provide a national forum where discussions could take place without being censored by Groundspeak. It would be a great shame for GB cachers if the service were removed.

Removal would also be unhelpful to GAGB, which is already accused of being an unrepresentative organisation managed by a handful of cachers. The proposal would reinforce this belief.

From the post on Groundspeak it seems to me that the proposal is based on technical grounds rather than anything else, and that's not a good reason.

I understand that GAGB is polling its members to see if the service should remain: non-members cannot vote. In other words, only those unaffected by the proposal may vote; those affected, who would then be denied a voice, cannot.

It would be helpful if GAGB would say if they believe that it's right that non-members should be denied a GB-specific forum and, if so, what has changed since the service was introduced as clearly they believed it to be right at that time.

[frosty68]

From the post on Groundspeak it seems to me that the proposal is based on technical grounds rather than anything else, and that's not a good reason.
I suspect that people finding out that although they have been active forum members/contributors for some time, they aren't eligible to vote in GAGB elections is also a factor, and one I find more important as technical issues cab be resolved behind the scenes, being counter-intuitive is a much harder hurdle to jump. Bear in mind that although some understand the distinction between being a forum member and a GAGB member, a sizeable number will not, and so won't recognise some posts/posters dislike/distrust/dis(insert verb of choice here) of what the GAGB (whos forums they're posting on) represent.
I can think of no other group that I belong to that insists upon 2 separate logins for full access.

Perhaps there was a need for a place for cachers to communicate without being under the "official" banner of groundspeak, I have absolutely no idea if you, or others feel such a situation still exists, though, perhaps, if you feel it does may I suggest there are plenty of free forum software packages, free hosting exists, and, for a couple of quid you could register "UK Independent Geocachers" or similar, so the vast majority, with neither knowledge nor care for the politics behind this debate, could have their lives just a tiny bit less complicated.

[Alan White]

I can think of no other group that I belong to that insists upon 2 separate logins for full access.
I agree that sounds strange, but it is nevertheless a technical issue and therefore should not be the reason for removing the only national, neutral caching forum which GB cachers have.



Perhaps there was a need for a place for cachers to communicate without being under the "official" banner of groundspeak, I have absolutely no idea if you, or others feel such a situation still exists,

It did exist; it has always existed; it will always exist. There are matters affecting GB cachers which are best discussed on a platform which is not owned or managed by listing sites.



may I suggest there are plenty of free forum software packages

Ah, the "if you don't like it go elsewhere" argument. It's rarely productive, and fragmentation of the GB caching community wouldn't help cachers and would simply demonstrate that GAGB really isn't representative of GB cachers.

[Predictable Bob]

:confused:

As a comparitive newbie to Geocaching and the GAGB I find it rather odd that people have an expectation that the GAGB should fund a forum for non members to air their views !

I've no interest in past politics (and precious little in the current ones either) but the choice seems obvious to me - either join the GAGB (and change it from the inside if it's not to your liking) or do your own thing elsewhere


:cool:

[DrDick&Vick]

One phrase often pops up: The GAGB does not represent all cachers in the UK.

but then we have "All cachers in the UK should be allowed access and to post in the GAGB forums"
and the only national, neutral caching forum which GB cachers have.
https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk85/richardmullans/Forum%20Smilies/dunno.gif

The GAGB website and forums survives on donations from it's membership, tell me why should they have to fund it for all the rest?

[border caz]

I really don't understand why there is so much rumpus over this issue.

When I joined the forum I automatically joined GAGB as well - I thought it a little strange that I had to join twice, but don't understand why anyone who wants to post on the forum doesn't join - it's not as if they have to pay a membership fee or anything.

It doesn't make sense for people to be able to make use of the GAGB forum if they are not GAGB members.

Can anyone think of any other association that provides a forum for use by non-members?

Non-members are saying it's not fair that they can't vote on the issue - well why don't they join then they could! If they can't even be bothered to tap a few computer keys to join up then why on earth should they be given the right to vote.

Some say they won't join the GAGB because it only represents a minority of cachers - well of course it will if everybody thinks like that.

[Alan White]

I've tried to find the original discussions on the issue but failed on here (forums changes?) and on Groundspeak (search limited to previous year) but as I recall it was GAGB which offered to provide the platform which we now enjoy. In other words, no-one is "demanding" that GAGB provide a forum for non-members but I for one am very grateful that it does.

Aside from the benefit of a national, neutral forum, there's an important reason why GAGB should have a non-members forum. GAGB makes rules and agreements which it claims apply to all GB cachers whether or not they're members of GAGB. So long as it does this then GAGB must allow non-members to discuss those rules and agreements.

[DrDick&Vick]

The GAGB do not make guidlines that apply to all cachers in the UK, it is the Groundspeak reviewers that actually apply these guidelines to all UK cachers. Their choice but they are not required to do so by the GAGB.

The aggrements are held in a database that can be viewed by all, not just members.
The Landowner Agreements are there to safe cache hiders from aproaching landowners all the time, they are not restrictive agreements mor like helpful.

I would suggest that you turn the rule 'flame' off as it is getting very boring.
Once again I remember why I resigned https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk85/richardmullans/Forum%20Smilies/Flamethrower_emoticon.gif

[Alan White]

The GAGB do not make guidlines that apply to all cachers in the UK
Indeed it doesn't - it just claims that it does. It is of course true that the rules can only be enforced by the listing sites.

There have been many occasions when GAGB has stated that it believes its rules and agreements apply to all cachers. If GAGB will publicly state that its rules and agreements apply only to its members then I'll withdraw my opposition to the removal of the non-members forum as I'll no longer have an interest in the activities of GAGB.

[DrDick&Vick]

There it is again that RULE word!
You really can get your words and meanings mixed up at times. They are GUIDELINES and not rules. Look them up in the dictionary if you really have trouble understanding their meanings.
If the rest of the caching community do not want to make use of the agreements that have been negotiated and listed in the GLAD then I am sure that they are quite free to approach each and every landowner every time they wish to hide a cache.

[Alan White]

They are GUIDELINES and not rules
Oh, please, we've been round this discussion many times over the years: what used to be guidelines are now rules. Try getting a cache published on a listing site where that site (which means Groundspeak as the others are less bureaucratic and not at all symbiotic) uses GAGB's rules.

"the GAGB guidelines are one of the most important 'tools' I use when reviewing caches."
A reviewer, 20 Jan 2009

[DrDick&Vick]

as I have said, if the reviewers decide to use the guidelines as their rules that is their choice, they were/are written as guidelines. Take it up with Groundspeak and the reviewers.

[Alan White]

as I have said, if the reviewers decide to use the guidelines as their rules that is their choice, they were/are written as guidelines. Take it up with Groundspeak and the reviewers.
Sigh. We've been around this argument so many times that I'm not sure I can be bothered. However, for the sake of completeness, here are a few quotes:
"No cache should be placed in or on a dry stone wall."
"should not be placed" [multiple occurences]
"Caches should not be buried."
There is no way that any of these can be considered as anything other than rules.

As an aside, just to show the foolishness of many of these rules, I was amused by this:
"Physical caches or physical cache stages should not be placed within the boundary of Network Rail railway stations, associated car parks, footbridges or immediately adjacent public spaces."
So a cache cannot be placed in a park which is next to a railway station?

[DrDick&Vick]

I think that you will find that the Guidelines are being re-written at this time, why not wait and see what comes out of the re-write.
:wacko:

[Jacaru]

Forgive me if I am wrong here but

SHOULD NOT is a guideline

MUST NOT is a rule.

I haven't seen the GAGB saying MUST NOT in anything that I have read.

[Alan White]

Forgive me if I am wrong here but
SHOULD NOT is a guideline

We've been here before, too; most recently at https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=54399&postcount=84

[Predictable Bob]

:D

Dick, I fear you are thrashing a deceased quadruped - it ain't worth the effort, let the Membership decide !


:D

[Jacaru]

We've been here before, too; most recently at https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=54399&postcount=84


I would have prefered you quoted the whole of what I said.

[DrDick&Vick]

Ah ha Daryl, but Alan White only snips and quotes what he wants to use *edited so as I don't offend the forum user concerned* https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk85/richardmullans/Forum%20Smilies/angel-1.gif
Here is your full quote

Forgive me if I am wrong here but

SHOULD NOT is a guideline

MUST NOT is a rule.

I haven't seen the GAGB saying MUST NOT in anything that I have read.

[Alan White]

I would have prefered you quoted the whole of what I said.
Why? Quoting entire posts in a forum is rarely necessary. Your point was well made, the thread maintains the entire post, and I was merely saying that we have recently discussed the "should" issue and therefore didn't need to do so again.

[Alan White]

Alan White only snips and quotes what wants to use for his sniping and dirt slinging mate.

If that's the attitude of a GAGB committee member then it doesn't sound like the kind of organisation I would want to be associated with.

Doesn't GAGB have rules about personal attacks in its forums?

[Mongoose39uk]

Keep up Richard is a member not a member of the committee.

[Mongoose39uk]

If that's the attitude of a GAGB committee member then it doesn't sound like the kind of organisation I would want to be associated with.

Doesn't GAGB have rules about personal attacks in its forums?

Not that I am aware of

[Mongoose39uk]

Should not and must not

When dealing with Statutory instruments........

Should not = you would be well advised to take this advice = guideline

Must not = see you in court = rule

Yes Alan the debate was had before, you just did not like the conclusion so as usual in my opinion you ignored it and carried on as before.

This is the first time in several years I have commented on anything you have said and will be the last. Ad I said last time I don't waste my time.

[Predictable Bob]

:applause:

Thanks, that fills in a few gaps !


:D

[DrDick&Vick]

Keep up Richard is a member not a member of the committee.

and now I remember why I resigned :applause:

[mollyjak]

Sigh. We've been around this argument so many times that I'm not sure I can be bothered. However, for the sake of completeness, here are a few quotes:
"No cache should be placed in or on a dry stone wall."
"should not be placed" [multiple occurences]
"Caches should not be buried."
There is no way that any of these can be considered as anything other than rules.

As an aside, just to show the foolishness of many of these rules, I was amused by this:
"Physical caches or physical cache stages should not be placed within the boundary of Network Rail railway stations, associated car parks, footbridges or immediately adjacent public spaces."
So a cache cannot be placed in a park which is next to a railway station?


The word 'should' is not a rule as there is no way the GAGB could enforce such a rule.

[Palujia]

Once again we appear to be dancing round in circles, trying not to offend the sensibilities of person(s) who don't want a sensible debate. Some wish to stir up trouble, whether it is to do with forum versus full membership, rules versus guidelines or even best practice. For the umpteenth time, all we are trying to do is support geocaching the best way we can. We are trying to negotiate with landowners and councils, Police and other authorities to ensure that our "hobby"?? is as trouble free as we can make it. We don't set ourselves up to be a be all and know all ruling elite of UK caching and make "Rules" for all. I do not give a large rodent's posterior if everyone ignores the sensible best practice or even guidelines, but I do get upset when any cacher does something really stupid and brings us all into disrepute. Unfortunately I was brought up in an age when people were taught to be polite, and no doubt the ageist ?(is that the word?) persons who made comments about the committee before the last election will be glad that I for one will not be standing for election again- I'm tired of banging my head against a brick wall :wacko::wacko::wacko:

[FuzzyBears]

:D

Dick, I fear you are thrashing a deceased quadruped - it ain't worth the effort, let the Membership decide !


:D

That's just the problem only part of the membership are deciding
When the GAGB offered to host a UK forum so that anything could be discussed without GS limitations I saw it as a good thing and joined thus becoming a member... now it seems I am not a member so can't have a say and a vote in it's future :confused:
Yet again someone will tell me to join the GAGB but no one will tell me what I will gain other than being able to post in a forum which I am already a member of :confused: As I see it the GAGB was a good forum with a site with lots of information attached to it and I don't see the point of joining something else just to get access to a forum I am already a member of

Someone will say the GAGB cost money to run.. who says forum members won't/haven't donate/d

and yes I know lots of work goes on behind the scenes but the committee volunteered for the job knowing what was involved. I run two forums one with multi level access so I know what is involved

BUT having sat back and thought about it I have come to a conclusion :-
This is a pointless debate..... When the GAGB members area was set up it was said that it would be only used as an area to discuss internal matters only and not for things of general interest. This is now not true thus making the rest of the forum pointless

My final point(s) on this before I shut up is:-
By removing access to non GAGB members to what was an open forum for all UK cachers the GAGB looses any mandate it has to represent geocaching in the UK . When it talks to anyone it can only claim to represent it's members not UK geocaching. I also hope the when the reviewers discuss changes to the guidelines which affect ALL UK cachers that they do it on the GS forum and not here which will be a closed members only forum and if they still use the GAGB guidelines that ALL UK cachers will have a chance to input into any changes they are going to implement

[Jacaru]

It may be all well and good saying that people should use the other site to put forward ideas for changes, but when you look at the Groundspeak site you see the same few names posting. I see more of a variety of names on the GAGB forum then I ever have on GS. In fact the majority of cachers who I talk to don't bother posting on the other side for fear of being shouted down, ridiculed or worse.

[FuzzyBears]

It may be all well and good saying that people should use the other site to put forward ideas for changes, but when you look at the Groundspeak site you see the same few names posting. I see more of a variety of names on the GAGB forum then I ever have on GS. In fact the majority of cachers who I talk to don't bother posting on the other side for fear of being shouted down, ridiculed or worse.

I agree we shouldn't have to go 'over there' but if the GAGB insist on me being a member of something I don't see the point of what choice will I have
The GAGB offered to host an open UK forum for all it is now trying to go back on that

[Predictable Bob]

That's just the problem only part of the membership are deciding



:confused:

I can't address the other issues you mentioned as I wasn't around and can't be certain that I have the full background but ...

The GAGB membership can all vote - if they choose not to then either they're happy with the likely outcome OR they don't give a rodents posterior (Thanks Paul - I like that !)

I suspect that you may have meant that the Forum Users can't vote which I personally think is quite reasonable - if they wish to influence the GAGB then they should join and get involved !

I actually fall into the 'Rodents Posterior' group as far as the running of the GAGB goes - I'm happy that they're doing a decent job and as a result there's a minimum impact on me so I can get on with caching rather than pontificating/massaging my ego/trolling/whatever ...

PS
I have nothing but respect for ANYBODY that works on a committee - I held several committee posts in a former hobby related club and it completely ruined my enjoyment so my kids and I quit and as a result I lost around £1000 when I sold off our equipment

:wacko:

[markandlynn]

I agree we shouldn't have to go 'over there' but if the GAGB insist on me being a member of something I don't see the point of what choice will I have
The GAGB offered to host an open UK forum for all it is now trying to go back on that
They are not going back on that at all ! a member has suggested it and they are debating it this is an extension of that discussion.

[FuzzyBears]

They are not going back on that at all ! a member has suggested it and they are debating it this is an extension of that discussion.

The day(yesterday) I found out they were discussing things which affect all UK cachers in the closed section this became a GAGB forum and not the open one we were offered so as I said earlier this debate has become pointless to me
I would like to thank the GAGB for the use of their forum and would like to apologise to anyone I have upset, wound up or 'had a go at' in my time here it's only because I care about our great hobby.
So whichever way this vote goes it still can't be an open forum to me

Hope to see you at a cache or an event somewhere
Cheers Dave :beer:

[keehotee]

Many of us don't agree with everything the committee do or suggest - but that doesn't stop us from being members. You've got to be "in it, to win it", and to just stand outside and cry because you don't agree and your principles are stopping you from having a say is just ridiculous!

I support the GAGB - I just may not agree with the committee or any other member all the time!

[border caz]

I really can't understand why a cacher living in GB who says that they care about the hobby does not want to join the group that represents cachers in GB.

I belong to quite a few organisations - I may not necessarily be fully in accord with all that happens within those organisations but at least, as a member, I can have my say in what goes on.

I get the impression that some folk have cut their noses off to spite their faces.

We should look to the future, not keep harping back to what was or was not done or said in the past.

[Clipper247]

I only started caching last year, so have obviously missed something....

Why do some people who use this forum not want to be members of the GAGB?

This isn't a dig, I really am interested as to why people feel they cannot support the GAGB, but are active cachers.

[Alan White]

Keep up Richard is a member not a member of the committee.
See https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-the-gagb/meet-the-committee/ (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-the-gagb/meet-the-committee/)
Second name on the list.

[Alan White]

Why do some people who use this forum not want to be members of the GAGB?

This isn't a dig, I really am interested as to why people feel they cannot support the GAGB, but are active cachers.
A perfectly reasonable question which requires a reasonable answer. The issue has been discussed a number of times previously so you may be able to find more in-depth answers in other threads. I'll try to briefly summarise my issues with GAGB.

GAGB's principal, almost only, activity is to liaise with landowners to ask them to agree to allow us to play our game. Why? If a public park is open to walkers, dogs and frisbee players why should I ask permission to cache there? This is not the most important issue in caching, but it is almost the only thing which GAGB does. I see that GAGB members are now posting SBAs on caches they believe are placed without permission.

GAGB purports to represent all UK cachers but as membership of GAGB is optional then it clearly does not. When this issue was last discussed it became known that GAGB members were less than 10% of GB cachers and only 55 cachers voted for the then committee. Yet GAGB goes to landowners and says "we are GB cachers" and agrees terms which it thinks bind every other GB cacher. Wrong: GAGB rules and agreements apply only to its members (and even that's open to question: the NF agreement applies only to the GAGB committee).

GAGB does not support cachers. Other hobby clubs provide services for members such as legal assistance (what did GAGB do for the Wetherby One?) and insurance. Other clubs fight for the rights of their members to enjoy their hobby.

GAGB has much too cosy a relationship with Groundspeak. GAGB's original guidelines (items 1-13 at the bottom of https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/, plus the last sentence of the first rule no. 1, and all of the first no.2) were common-sense guidelines with which any cacher should acquaint themselves. Then Groundspeak needed some more rules and asked GAGB to provide them. So we have the enhanced first no.1, and 2-6). Only the fact that GAGB has documented these rules enables Groundspeak to use them, yet Groundspeak used to say that it didn't use GAGB guidelines. If Groundspeak wants new rules for listing it should create them itself, not rely on the organisation representing GB cachers to do it by proxy. Some Groundspeak reviewers are even GAGB members: a clearer case of conflict of interest would be hard to find.

I use this forum because GAGB offered it to me in order to host the only national, neutral forum which GB cachers have. There are many local forums but sometimes a national focus is needed. Providing this forum is probably the best thing that GAGB has ever done and I'm grateful that they do. The urban rule, in which I had some involvement, was a good example of how a rule which would affect all GB cachers can be modified during debate to ensure it's fit for purpose. Removing this forum will mean that non-members will have no say in future rules which affect us all.

So to answer your question, I don't want to be a member of GAGB because I don't agree with its actions, which I think do more harm for caching than good.

[FuzzyBears]

OK, why don't I want to join the GAGB:-
It has lost it's way... The GAGB is a great idea but it's not doing what it set out to do - to represent cachers against ALL problems ... It's now part of the establishment not fighting against it
When we had the bomb scare in Yorkshire nothing was seen to happen until someone asked what the GAGB was going to do about it and only when the chairman returned from a weekend away did anything be seen to be being done.... the response to this sort of thing should be what you are planning not the next rule for GS

I am one of the VERY few people who don't think national agreements are a good idea.... If one cacher messes up in a forest we could loose the whole of the FC caches not just one area. And as most caches now seem to be being placed without permission anyway what's the point. Look at church micros as soon as a rule was brought in that written permission was required most of them moved out of churches and some you can't even see the church

The GAGB is doing nothing to educate cachers... cache quality is at an all time low... if you want to write guidelines then they should guide as well as restrict

The GAGB is being used as scapegoats by both GS and the reviewers by writing it's RULES for them and then hiding from the fallout by saying they are GAGB guidelines not GS rules when someone questions them.. come on be honest we all know how they will be used

The GAGB keeps asking for ideas to increase membership I've seen lots of good ideas but haven't seen that much effort to implement them. As some will know I run the East Anglian cachers forum and more than once have offered to let it be used to put people in touch with the group... after a very short try ... nothing

The GAGB won't/don't listen to criticism Mat/NobbyNobs asked a question about the future of the GAGB on this forum this week so far no official responce

They are some of the reasons why I don't think the GAGB is a good thing

Why am I being ridiculous and cutting off my nose.. which yes I am... and not joining to change from within:-

While the forum was separate from the 'main' GAGB the few of us who didn't like what the GAGB were doing could discuss things with the knowledge that there were others who would join in and help when the inner circle gang up.... which happens every time someone questions what the GAGB is proposing
Then the forum was split and all discussions seem now to be moving there.

So why not fight from the inside.... I have seen in the past few years what happens to people who try to do that. They have been berated attacked(verbally)... their motives brought into question... accused of not caring about how much work the committee put in... and the one that comes up every few months is "the committee being damned if it does..."
just look at the reaction to my post on Facebook about the forum.. Ok I was upset and couldn't see why as a member of the forum I would have no say in it's future but all I got was questions why I wouldn't join along with most of the quotes above.. as yet no one has given me an answer

But the one that worries me most is the way they have been attacked outside this group on twitter facebook etc which then becomes mainstream UK cachers
We have spent many years making lots of good friends through caching and I don't want to ruin that just to fight something I don't really believe in. I have tried over the last few years to stand up for others including on my own forum and each time I have lost good friends because of it
I will not put myself or especially Sue through any more of that

Non of this is aimed directly at today's committee or any other members but at the mentality that the GAGB has become and perhaps some of it will be stopped but I'm not willing to chance what we have to fight any more
I will go back to finding boxes and enjoying caching

All I will ask is that the GAGB listens and stop treating every question as a direct attack (even if it is:))

As I said we will see you at an event somewhere
Dave

[Jacaru]

So, you have these people saying that they don't want to join the GAGB because it has lost its way, doesn't listen, doesn't support cachers etc. etc.
Yet, I didn't see any of these people standing for election last time. Surely rather than just whinging about something they don't like, disagree with, can't stand, want to have a tantrum about, etc. etc. they would stand for election to try and change things from the inside. It is very easy to attack from behind a keyboard as we see time and time again. Try standing on the other side and do something about it if you don't like it.

As has been said before, the committee do a stirling job with very little thanks and yes, they did agree to be nominated, elected and become a committee member. They didn't agree to be constantly on the receiving end of criticism from a minority who won't/don't want to be members of the GAGB, yet feel the need to post on the very site that they attack:wacko:

[Administrator]

See https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-the-gagb/meet-the-committee/ (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/../what-is-the-gagb/meet-the-committee/)
Second name on the list.
Your comment has been duly noted and rectified.
Sorry but my real life sometimes stops me carrying out all tasks immediately.

[DrDick&Vick]

GAGB does not support cachers. Other hobby clubs provide services for members such as legal assistance (what did GAGB do for the Wetherby One?) and insurance.

When I was still on the committee I pursued many avenues to try and get some form of member's insurance scheme to cover legal costs etc. Every reply I recieved had an extremely expensive premium to pay or they were just not interested.
As the Association's Constitution quite clearly states 'To keep membership of Association free of charge.' there is now way that such a premium could be paid from donations alone.

[FuzzyBears]

multi posted???

[Alan White]

So, you have these people saying that they don't want to join the GAGB because it has lost its way, doesn't listen, doesn't support cachers etc. etc.
Yet, I didn't see any of these people standing for election last time.

This is a non-sequitur. Presumably only GAGB members are permitted to be on the committee so someone who doesn't want to join the GAGB can't be on the committee.

In any case, why would someone stand for election to the committee of a group it doesn't approve of?

[Alan White]

'To keep membership of Association free of charge.'
I thought that might be the stumbling block - well done for trying.

I do wonder how long that philosophy - laudable though it is - can continue, and how big a factor it is. I'm reminded of the old G:UK site which, because the founder wanted it to always be free, eventually folded through lack of money even though I and several others offered to donate to keep it going.

Consider the Ramblers' Assocation, which must surely be the closest parallel to caching. Their annual single membership is £31.00 though the benefits don't seem to be matched by the cost :).

[frosty68]

In any case, why would someone stand for election to the committee of a group it doesn't approve of?
Because the GAGB is a good idea, perhaps not perfectly implemented, improvements could certainly be made, but the idea of a central body representing UK cachers interests has merit and value. You obviously feel passionate about both the hobby and the organisation, so why wouldn't you want to help make it better? What's the alternative?

What has become obvious from these discussions is that there is a sense of confusion between members and non-members over just what they do belong to, some found when it came to voting last time around they weren't in a position to as they joined the "wrong thing", even though every page starts gagb.org.uk/ it's not the gagb, so which minority should be catered for, the one who signs up for something and expects it to be simple (most internet users), or the ones who want to use gagb resources to rail against it?

Sadly it's not up to me, but if it were I'd probably give you what you appear to be asking for, a bit of server space to host a uksolipsistcachers forum. Then drop an email to all current members of this forum inviting them to join the GAGB with its associated forum, or the uksolipsistcachers, both or neither.

[keehotee]

GAGB's principal, almost only, activity is to liaise with landowners to ask them to agree to allow us to play our game. Why? If a public park is open to walkers, dogs and frisbee players why should I ask permission to cache there?

I suspect that if you wanted to stash your walking boots/dog food/frisbee there and publicly invite other walkers/dog owners/frisbee fliers along to use them, the park owners might insist you had permission first? :rolleyes:

I used to be quite involved in kites a few years ago.
Exeter City Council were quite happy for people to fly kites in their parks, and to have picnics. But when we combined the two and invited the public along we not only had to get permission, but public liability insurance too.

[keehotee]

Consider the Ramblers' Assocation, which must surely be the closest parallel to caching. Their annual single membership is £31.00 though the benefits don't seem to be matched by the cost :).

:eek: and you thought the GAGB was misguided and interfering !!!!!! :ohmy: :D

[Alan White]

Because the GAGB is a good idea, perhaps not perfectly implemented, improvements could certainly be made, but the idea of a central body representing UK cachers interests has merit and value. You obviously feel passionate about both the hobby and the organisation, so why wouldn't you want to help make it better?

You make an excellent point though what you're really suggesting is that I join GAGB, ignore its present philosophy, and try to mould it to suit my ideal of what it should be about. I'm sure that wouldn't work (others have tried and failed), firstly because my own ethics would prevent me from joining an organisation of which I disapprove, and secondly because even I can see that my views on GAGB, though not unsupported, are not widespread among those who choose to express an opinion. It seems to me that most GAGB members are just happy that there is a GB cachers' club and don't much care what it does or what it stands for.



I'd probably give you what you appear to be asking for, a bit of server space to host a uksolipsistcachers forum.
If that's what you think then I regret I've not explained myself very well. I don't need server space - I have plenty of my own, thanks. There are two issues, both of them mentioned earlier in the thread but I'll repeat them here for ease.

1. The non-member forum access was provided at a time when relations between GB cachers and Groundspeak were at an all-time low and the point was to provide a national, neutral forum where discussions could take place without being censored by Groundspeak. I believe such a forum remains valuable and, although it would be possible to host elsewhere it is better in a GB-specific, central location which, for similar reasons, also hosts the landowner database.

2. GAGB makes rules and agreements which it claims apply to all GB cachers whether or not they're members of GAGB. So long as it does this then GAGB must allow non-members to discuss those rules and agreements. If GAGB will publicly state that its rules and agreements apply only to its members then I'll withdraw my opposition to the removal of the non-members forum as I'll no longer have an interest in the activities of GAGB.

[DrDick&Vick]

The Landowner Agreements that are stored in the GLAD are there for the benefit of any geocacher who wished to use them and therefore avoid the agravation of approaching a landowner who has already agreed that caches may be hidden on his/her/their land.
If you and other geocachers do not wish to take advantage of these then that is your choice and you are quite free to approach each and every landowner on your own.
The New Forest agreement is the only one that really has any restrictions built in but without this agreement the New Forest would not agree to any caches being hidden.
So basically ignore the GLAD and do your own thing as far as getting permission to place a cache where ever you want to.
If you feel so strongly about the restrictions that are being imposed by the reviewers (because the use the guidelines as rules) appeal the the ECofHR or simply stop using Groundspeak's services.

[frosty68]

1. The "all time low" bit was before my time, I seem to have come into caching at a time when the game has matured, yet still has space to evolve further (though It's going to take some doing to convince me scanning QR codes is a good idea, I can see it leading to "scan a QR, that's the cache logged). As such I'm unaware of past difficulties, but I'm not sure that as the situation seems to have improved, the separation of the GAGB and its forum needs to continue. If the need for an independent, central forum is essential then I suggest the FollowTheArrow site is a much more sensible location, as it has no outward affiliation with any caching body, exists purely as a resource for cachers, and I suspect most of us have visited it and understand its value to the community.

2. What rules? I keep on seeing them referred to, but the only place I've seen some is the GS site. Again I'm new here but I've seen discussions regarding the guidelines hosted here, if GS insist on using them as rules then we have a couple of options.
a. Scrap guidelines, let GS decide local issues for us from afar
b. Collaborate to create a set of guidelines which we, as a community, are happy to adhere to. I find it sad that suggesting people don't place caches in drystone walls even needs saying, but apparently not all cachers are sensible or considerate, so it does :(

[Alan White]

I suggest the FollowTheArrow site is a much more sensible location
Isn't that owned and run by a Groundspeak reviewer?



What rules?
https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ and https://www.gagb.org.uk/land-agreements.php



a. Scrap guidelines, let GS decide local issues for us from afar
That's my preference though the first part doesn't lead to the second part. Groundspeak will decide their own rules regardless of what GAGB thinks.

Unfortunately some people think that there always has to be someone in control and that there needs to be a rule for every eventuality (cf. the recent discussions on urban caches and fake signs).

The drystone wall rule is a good example of a bad rule. It was introduced by a specific event, for a specific purpose, to ban a specific type of hiding place. It makes no allowance for the fact that a cache may be placed in a mortared wall and that searching will almost certainly damage that wall: I've seen many examples of this since the arrival of the micro. All that's needed are recommendations such as "respect the environment and its history" and "Excessively vigorous searching may have a negative impact on the environment. Take care to minimise this." (These were taken from https://opencache.uk/ocwiki/index.php/Draft_New_Guidelines which I had a hand in developing. Quite why they're still a draft is a mystery - I'll enquire).

[frosty68]

I believe the arrow site is owned by a GS reviewer, always expecting the best of people (and usually right to do so), it never crossed my mind he wouldn't be open to the idea of hosting a site containing independent thought.

Having looked at the draft rules, erm guidelines over at OC.org (that is different to opencaching.com?!) they seem a sensible list that anyone should be happy to follow. Based upon them I would be fine listing a unsealed glass jar full of chocolates and needles just outside a primary school? Being guidelines and recommendations I guess I can do as I like? Or are they supposed to be quite firmly adhered to, a little like rules?
I must say the rules/guidelines debate does seem a little "much ado over nothing" to me.

That's the first time I've seen opencaching.org.uk, I have seen .com before, and I can imagine a great deal of justifiable vitriol was cast upon garmin when they did that. I just tried the google earth overlay to see what caches were listed there, but it didn't work for me...I guess I need to read some :)

[nobbynobbs]

Ok, there is a often repeated request for people to change from the inside. So I would like to suggest that the following happens:

The guidelines/rules are removed from this site and placed under the umbrella of Groundspeak either on their site of that of "follow the arrow" No further guidelines or national negotiations are entered into but any such request is passed back to the reviewer for him to negotiate and list.
They can be replaced by a guide to how to place a good cache but not guideline that will be used by a listing site.

The landowner agreements are likewise removed and held by groundspeak and that all future agreements be negotiated under the name of groundspeak so that there exists no room for people to complain that agreements are being made by a group that represents less than 1000 people that affects all cachers.

Then the GAGB do a detailed account of all calls and emails received and establish to which listing site they pertain. If they discover that all/most are regarding groundspeak caches and cachers then I would suggest that this faciltiy is also passed to a groundspeak reviewer to deal with as then it can be handled by someone who has any authority to deal with any problem.


These are three suggestions from inside the organisation that I strongly feel are needed to be discussed and hopefully carried so that the GAGB may return to it's core which is to stand up for the cachers of this country not to impose more and more restrictions upon them.

We will now see whether the calls for reform from inside will get what they have asked for or whether these are ignored.


I do believe that the committee do a large amount of good hard work I just feel that the work should be done by someone else.

[Mongoose39uk]

Or you could do something really sensible and wait for the new approach to what are now guidelines.

or you can try and destroy the GAGB before this significant change

[DrDick&Vick]

Unfortunately I feel that there are other moves afoot to destroy the association completely.

[trampyjoe]

Unfortunately I feel that there are other moves afoot to destroy the association completely.

As I posted in another thread about starting my own association, therefore I'm now being paranoid, I feel I should be the one to ask ...

Could you please expand on your accusation?

[DrDick&Vick]

Nothing pointing at you I can assure you and I apologise if you thought it was.

[Alan White]

Having looked at the draft rules, erm guidelines over at OC.org (that is different to opencaching.com?!)
Yes. opencaching.org.uk (and .pl, .de and all the others) predate Garmin's opencaching.com. Garmin fell out with Groundspeak and decided to set up their own listing site. No problem there, except that Garmin appropriated the Opencaching name without asking and without taking on the concept. Opencaching is a cacher-led and -run, not-for-profit enterprise hosted by dedicated volunteers who want to provide alternative listing sites for their country.



Being guidelines and recommendations I guess I can do as I like?

A discussion of the detail of OCUK's guidelines is best done on OCUK's forum but, in short, the premise of the recommendations is that cachers are sensible people who don't need to be told not to do x, do y, and who don't think that there needs to be a rule for every tiny detail of what is fundamentally just a silly game.

That said, all the points you mention are covered in OCUK recommendations. Perhaps you need to read them again, more carefully?

[Graculus]

I'm posting this in two threads as reference is made to my my resource site, "follow-the-arrow" (http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk) and the possibility of me hosting information and I wanted to explain what my site is all about.

When I became a reviewer in July 2008 the GAGB website was in real need of an update, it had guidelines and the GLAD and of course the forums but I felt it didn't offer cachers much more. For example the download page had very little in the way of actual resources for people. We reviewers were using map resources that were publicly available and I wanted to show cachers how to use them to help them when placing their own caches. I was getting enquiries from people about how to use their GPS for paperless caching and where they could find more information for example. So I created various pages on the site, overlays of land areas and several interactive online forms to apply for permission (that are linked to from the GLAD entries by the way). So my site has just grown as I've added more and more pages.

The GAGB site had a major update a while ago and now looks very smart but I have to say it still doesn't offer much more than it did before; the guidelines, GLAD and forum. The download page still has much the same on it. Take an example; you can download Lord Elphs icons but there is no explanation of what they are for or how you use them. I've created a page all about paperless caching including some downloadable guides that explain how to do things. I would point out my day job is writing and delivering technical training courses so doing this sort of thing is easy for me! Should the GAGB have this sort of thing on the site for people? Perhaps that's something for another discussion.

My paperless page brings me to an important point. That page is about paperless caching using www.geocaching.com (https://www.geocaching.com), not any other listing site. This is because I'm a reviewer with the Groundspeak organisation and I also cache on that site too. I set up my site specifically to provide a resource for caching with geocaching.com. The GAGB works with all the listing sites and all of them can use the GLAD - we certainly do. So would I host the GLAD on my site? The answer is no for two simple reasons. Firstly my site only represents one listing site and I have no connection with any other sites so that would make the GLAD exclusive to geocaching.com in effect. Secondly the site is my own personal creation, I pay the annual hosting charge, I do not get any funding or donations for it. Groundspeak have nothing to do with the site. I created the site to help my fellow cachers, I'm happy to bear the costs. So I can make the personal decision that I don't want to host the GLAD because I wouldn't have time (or inclination) to keep it up to date. I think in that respect the GAGB do an excellent job with it.

The GLAD is an important resource for us reviewers and we appreciate the hard work the GAGB have put into creating it and negotiating the agreements. But if it is to be used by all listing sites then an 'independant' location is important for it. There have been comments that it could be hosted directly by Groundspeak. I'm only a volunteer with that organisation, I'm not employed by them so cannot give any opinion on what they would say to that suggestion but I think the answer would be no again for the reasons given above, it would make it exclusive to Groundspeak and they (or probably us reviewers) would have to maintain it!

Minor edit made to clarify why I was posting in two threads in the first sentence.

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