Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Should we bother with Navicache ?

  1. #1
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    A lot of the discussions latley seem to say stuff like "what about people who use Navicache" or "that only applies to caches listed on GC.COM".

    As far as I am aware caches listed on Navicache have no approval process similar to GC.com and caches allowed on one are not always allowed on the other. Do we have any legitamacy negotiating with landowners when the guidelines, produced as a result, can only be enforced on GC.COM ?

    Isn't it time we nailed our colours firmly to the mast and changed our mandate to be representation of our members using Geocaching.com in the UK? If you want a say in how GC.COM deals with UK cachers then GAGB represents your interests in the same way that if you want to have clout with your employers a union (or staff association) represents your interests (in principle anyway....lets not get political).

    Just wondering what people think.
    Chris

  2. #2
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    If think the GAGB should answer this. It either represents it's members and acknowledges that Navicache actually exists, links etc, or clearly states it is a GC.Com thing.

    As an aside, there are guidelines and approvals for caches on Navicache. They may be different from GC.com but that doesn't make them wrong.

  3. #3
    stumper Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 1 2003, 12:19 PM
    Isn't it time we nailed our colours firmly to the mast and changed our mandate to be representation of our members using Geocaching.com in the UK?

    Just wondering what people think.
    Chris
    Nope.

    Take a look a some of the geocaching groups in the States. They are moving in the other direction and keeping a distance from geocaching.com.

    AT THE MOMENT g.com is the main caching site in the world. But it might not stay that way forever. Some US groups are not 100% happy with the way geocaching.com operates ie "what Jeremy says, goes" and there COULD come a time when alternative sites are developed.

    The probability is that such a site would not be Navicache but a site developed and operated non-commercially by a group of independant caching organisations. I'm not saying that this is iminent but there is sufficient disquiet in the ranks at the moment to make it a possiblilty.

    Remember how the Rugby League came about? Remember how the Football League was formed to move away from the control of the Football Association? If caching (and I use that word and not "GEOCACHING" because Jeremy was smart enough to patent that name) ever does take off in a big way it will evolve into a sport run by a world governing body of some sort and not by one person who hijacked an idea that wasn't even his in the first place.
    http://www.seaotters.net/~scout/Geodashing...ing/history.htm

    So I would say that to nail our colours to one mast or another at this stage might not be the best idea.

  4. #4
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Yes, if you look at the Navicache site's FAQ's, there do appear to be some informal guidelines.

    So, how should GAGB "handle" Navicache?

    Well, if you are a member of GAGB, then, as part of being a member, you will, I am sure, be asked to abide by its guidelines. It doesn't matter WHERE on the internet you post your cache, those guidelines apply.

    If you are seen to break the guidelines, then GAGB (ie it's committee, which represents its members) might wish to terminate your membership.

    I am sure that one of the things that the new GAGB committee might wish to pursue is building a relationship with other cache listing sites.

    But remember that it has to be a 2-way thing: if THEY expect support from GAGB, then they, in turn, must support GAGB... which may include a line or two on the website suggesting that UK cachers ought to abide by the GAGB-provided guidelines. It might also include a willingness to remove caches from its listing that blatently break any such guidelines.

    But lets get a new committee set up first....


    Paul

  5. #5
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 09:48 PM
    Well, if you are a member of GAGB, then, as part of being a member, you will, I am sure, be asked to abide by its guidelines. It doesn't matter WHERE on the internet you post your cache, those guidelines apply.

    If you are seen to break the guidelines, then GAGB (ie it's committee, which represents its members) might wish to terminate your membership.
    Totally agree.


    I am sure that one of the things that the new GAGB committee might wish to pursue is building a relationship with other cache listing sites.
    Agree with that.

    But remember that it has to be a 2-way thing: if THEY expect support from GAGB, then they, in turn, must support GAGB... which may include a line or two on the website suggesting that UK cachers ought to abide by the GAGB-provided guidelines. It might also include a willingness to remove caches from its listing that blatently break any such guidelines.
    This is back to the same discussion on the other thread. The GAGB should encourage IT'S members to follow the rules of the GAGB. It should not start laying down the law to non GAGB .... Well that's for the other thread.

  6. #6
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Should we bother with Navicache?

    IMHO, yes.

    If we ignore other cachers, we only leave the gate open for caches to be placed against a land-owning/managing body's guidelines, intentionally or not, and all cachers would have to take responsibility.

    But there is a culture of being difficult for difficulties sake at the moment. Petty arguments about who should acknowledge the others existence first. Navicache, or GAGB. (Why doesn't someone take the first step?)

    Trivial quibbles over whether GAGB guidelines should be imposed on all cachers, or just its members. (If the guidelines make sense, reflect the wishes of the landowners, and the law - why shouldn't they be upheld by all cachers? Surely if the guidelines only reflect the wishes of those in charge, it is the responsible thing to do. If the guidelines evolve into ridiculous rules that ultimately lead to damging the sport, then of course they should be withdrawn - at the present time, the HCC guidelines are common sensical. Nothing more, nothing less, and as such as responsible geocachers, we should abide by them, regardless of our geographical location) - the word "impose" is a strong one, and I have no doubt that someone will pick me up on it. But right now, I can't think of the word that I am searching for, so this one will have to be in its place.

    And for Pete's sake, upset being caused by someone having an alternative opinion. It's an opinion of people that choose to fight for what they believe in - and that's honorable, whether or not they are "right". Remember, it is the opinion that caching needed a formal representative that founded GAGB in the first place.

  7. #7
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 1 2003, 01:42 PM
    As an aside, there are guidelines and approvals for caches on Navicache. They may be different from GC.com but that doesn't make them wrong.
    As a side note, can I bring up the following about the approval procss on Navicache... I have a cache listed on NC. Actually, I have two (except they are the same cache).

    When I placed my first cache, I listed it there, as well as on GC.com. After a while, the cache had to be moved to a new location, and I updated the information on both sites. However, many months later, after a night out, I had a sudden realisation: I hadn't updated the details on NC!

    I had long since forgotten my password for the site, but in my inebriated state, that didn't matter, as I just set up a new account, and relisted the cache.

    After I had done so, the cache was approved quickly, which is all well and dandy. Except the approver failed to note that the cache was called *exactly* the same as another nearby cache. A little lax, don't you think?

    But theres more. I hadn't forgotten to update the details of the original at all - I had done that task when the movement was originally made.

    So not only did the approver fail to spot that the cache was an apparent copycat, but that it was also placed in exactly the same location as the other. You cans ee the two caches here. When I was in a more sensible frame of mind, I decided to leave both caches listed, to see how long it took anyone to notice. Needless to say, it hasn't happened yet.

    Now - my query is this: I am not against Navicache in principle. I wholeheartedly believe that there being an alternative to the any apparently premier caching listing site (be it GC.com or otherwise) is a good thing, but if approvals are this shoddy (ok, my own habits were a little shoddy in this instance too - my hands up to this) then why should anyone think for an instance that any guidelines - even Navicaches own - would be upheld by their approvers?

  8. #8
    SimonG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 1 2003, 12:19 PM
    Isn't it time we nailed our colours firmly to the mast and changed our mandate to be representation of our members using Geocaching.com in the UK?
    I'd been thinking exactly the same thing. What happens when I start EvilGeocaching.com, where all the caches are on private land and to log a find you have to poke an old lady in the eye on the way out? Does the GAGB really want to be seen as affiliated with it?

    I'm not suggesting for a moment that any of the existing sites are as irresponsible as EvilGeocaching.com, but they all have different rules and principles, and if their principles are fundamentally different to those of the GAGB, is it possible, or even desirable, to liaise on their behalf?

    What is geocaching, anyway? Is it anything that uses that name? It might seem obvious, but just look at all the different cache types listed on GC.com. What if Jeremy decided to give virtual caches their own site? Would the GAGB represent it?

  9. #9
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 2 2003, 11:43 AM
    then why should anyone think for an instance that any guidelines - even Navicaches own - would be upheld by their approvers?
    One was rejected only last week for being buried.

    I'm sure we can find many examples from the early days of GC.com as well. B)

  10. #10
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Has anyone actually read the FAQ on navicahe? They are not far from gc.com etc. B)

  11. #11
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 2 2003, 05:22 PM
    Has anyone actually read the FAQ on navicahe? They are not far from gc.com etc. B)
    Yes, I actually managed to find it the other day, when I was posting about it.

    Their guidelines aren't called guidelines as such, but felt more like "some friendly advice", and felt very informal.

    Yes, the "feel" of the section was similar... but not formal etc, giving a feeling that they weren't TOO bothered about it, just please be sensible, and we're not going to do much about it anyway.... Maybe its all like that simply because Navicache is a FAR smaller site than GC.com

    I get a feeling that any landowner looking at navicache would NOT feel that their interests were being considered as much as if they looked at GC.com

    I think Navicache could do themselves a lot of good by posting some rather more formal guidelines, both about cache placement, and about cache finding (eg don't make paths)... maybe even referring to "local guideline / rule repositories" (eg the many local organisations in US).


    Paul

  12. #12
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    I think there are some double standards in play here. (Probably not intentionally)

    In this thread and in other threads earlier during the formation of the GAGB, it was suggested that Navicache should have alink to GAGB if we are to have one to them. I've had a look and, apart from the links on members caches, I can't find GC.coms link back to this site nor can I find the OS link back to here.

    The FAQ on Navicache may look like a loose set of guidelines but they are enforced. GC.com has a defined set of guidelines which sometimes are and sometimes are not enforced. I'm sure there are examples of caches on Navicache where they break the guidelines.

    My point here is that they are not bad people they just like a slightly less autocratic way of working. Your still not meant to put guns in caches, your not meant to bury caches, your not meant to disturb ancient sites, leave litter, cut down the undergrowth, etc.

  13. #13
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 2 2003, 05:20 PM
    One was rejected only last week for being buried.

    I'm sure we can find many examples from the early days of GC.com as well. B)
    That's great. Doody, in fact.

    But is two years on still early days?

  14. #14
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Nail our colours to the mast?

    No I absolutely don't think we should, but I have a sneaking suspicion that we inadvertantly have, and I suspect that I am the first person to realise it.

    Somebody mentioned above that Jeremy Irish had patented the name "geocaching".... (I suspect that patent may not be the technically correct term but we all know what it means, ie that he has registered it as some sort of trade mark or slogan)

    ..if this is the case then a group calling itself the "geocaching association of anywhere" must, logically mean only those people who are "geocachers". In order to be a geocacher you must be a member of GC.COM at least. So, what we are saying with our name is that unless you sign up with gc.com, you can't be a geaocacher and therefore we don't want you.

    I'm sure this was completely unintentional, but now it has been noticed, maybe we should decide what we do about this anomaly?

    - Does Jeremy hold rights to the term in the UK?
    - If he does, does he sanction us using it? (I think it's pretty obvious that he does actually)
    - If he does, he therefore would also forbid it's use in conjunction with any rival listing site to GC.COM and in particular he would have to object on legal grounds to someone who only used Navicache saying that they were "geocaching".

    Now, if Jeremy does NOT own the rights to the term, then the above is superfluous and no we shouldn't nail our colours to the mast of any listing site at this stage. Maybe five years down the line, but not yet. We need to be INclusive not EXclusive.

  15. #15
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 3 2003, 10:40 PM
    But is two years on still early days?
    Two years in any sport is early days. I only used the last week one as an example as it's one I know of, it wasn't my cache. (I'm sure there are people out there think I eat children)

    The point is the rules are enforced at this time

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •