Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 24 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

  16. #16
    SimonG Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL@Aug 4 2003, 02:20 AM
    - 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".
    Actually he wouldn't - he's stated that he only patented 'geocaching' to stop anyone else from doing it (and telling him he can't use it any more) - he's not going to stop other people from using the term.

  17. #17
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by SimonG+Aug 4 2003, 08:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SimonG @ Aug 4 2003, 08:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--MCL@Aug 4 2003, 02:20 AM
    - If he does, he therefore would also forbid it&#39;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".
    Actually he wouldn&#39;t - he&#39;s stated that he only patented &#39;geocaching&#39; to stop anyone else from doing it (and telling him he can&#39;t use it any more) - he&#39;s not going to stop other people from using the term. [/b][/quote]
    But we should be aware that this ***could*** change.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arborfield
    Posts
    25

    Default

    In my opinion we should be looking to maintain a relationship with Navicache.

    Although it has a massively smaller number of caches compared to GC.com, there are UK cachers who for one reason or another use Navicache exclusively in favour of GC.com (and a number who use both sites). I feel it is important to make ALL UK geocachers feel welcome, otherwise we end up almost as a subset of the Geocaching.com UK geocachers, lacking a significant group in UK geocaching.

    As many of the idelogical reasons for using Navicache as opposed to GC.com relate to the perception that Grounded is a corporation trying to gain commercial benefit from Geocaching, it is important that in including Navicache, that GAGB is not seen as a commercial (i.e. GC.com) takeover of Navicache.

    Having said that the first steps have been decidedly bumpy as the founders of GAGB were all significant cachers from GC.com, plus UK caching publicity and sites have tended to largely ignore Navicache. E.g. Items in the media generally only mention GC.com, and GeocacheUK.com describes itself as being resources for the UK Geocaching Community only lists caches and stats from GC.com.

    If we are serious about being representative we need to be inclusive, highlighting what we share (an enjoyment of searching for boxes), acknowledging our differences, but working together for the benefit of the whole UK caching community, not just the biggest bit.

    Richard

  19. #19
    plaid-dragon Guest

    Default

    Forgive me for being a bit dense, but wasn&#39;t one of the original aims of GAGB to support *all* cachers, regardless of their affiliation to gc.com? :unsure:

    I was under the impression that this was the reason for setting up another "club" - if GAGB is only going to represent the interests if members of gc.com, what purpose is it serving that is not already met by gc.com? Okay, there are the HCC guidelines but IIRC the negotiations there started before GAGB was founded.

  20. #20
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 4 2003, 07:55 AM
    Two years in any sport is early days.
    Sorry Icenians, crossed wires, I think.

    You said in your previous post...


    I&#39;m sure we can find many examples from the early days of GC.com as well.
    Which insinuates that the mistake I noted of Navicaches approval process was due to Navicache being in its infancy, not the sport. So I will ask again - Is the site (Navicache) at two years old, still in its early days? Or should it have ironed out such approval errors by now?

    And, before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick about what I&#39;m arguing here - I do not think that Navicache should be excluded from GAGB (nor should any cache listing site).

    I do however feel that all listing sites - and this includes GC.com - should maintain a standard while approving caches, otherwise any guidelines or rules (shock&#33; horror&#33 required by LOM&#39;s are entirely and utterly worthless.

    I pulled Navicache up on it, as I have to date placed four caches with GC.com, and never had a problem (in fact, quite the opposite - I&#39;ve have some very useful feedback about the wording, description, location, and parking requirements for them), and yet with my only cache on NC.com (ok, second, in a sense) the first thing I encountered was a lack of common sense.

    The point being this: In my view, any GAGB progress can be rendered null and void quite willingly by any other site that it claims to represent. At this time - and at this time only - I can see NC.com&#39;s approval process being of such a standard that it may fail to pick up on fairly blatant discrepancies in a cache listing, which may be detrimental to any progress that GAGB or anyone else makes with LOM&#39;s.

  21. #21
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 4 2003, 05:51 PM
    At this time - and at this time only - I can see NC.com&#39;s approval process being of such a standard that it may fail to pick up on fairly blatant discrepancies in a cache listing, which may be detrimental to any progress that GAGB or anyone else makes with LOM&#39;s.
    GC.com could equally fail to pick up on it. Consider this:

    Co-ords = xxN xx.xxx, xxW xx.xx

    Description = Cool cache just off the path. Easy to find&#33; Come and get it.

    Do you think this would be approved under the current guidelines? Probably. Now, this could be in a bin bag, buried in a fox hole covered over with earth that you need a shovel to get at. One you get the cache out it is made of glass and crammed with food, drink and matches.

    Why does it get approved? Because there are no additional info that you need to provide the approver at GC with (which would be hidden from the cachers).

    The only reason many caches get rejected is because of what the cacher discloses voluntarily.

  22. #22
    Kouros Guest

    Default


    Probably. Now, this could be in a bin bag, buried in a fox hole covered over with earth that you need a shovel to get at. One you get the cache out it is made of glass and crammed with food, drink and matches.
    A very good point - it could happen to anyone. It is, in fact why I said in the same post "I do however feel that all listing sites - and this includes GC.com - should maintain a standard while approving caches, otherwise any guidelines or rules (shock&#33; horror&#33 required by LOM&#39;s are entirely and utterly worthless."

    Obviously that point did not take into consideration any cache listing which didn&#39;t contain much information, or contained false details.

    So is this a problem that has to be tackled? There are, as far as I can see, two solutions.

    1. Do nothing. At present, that would probably be the approach of all listing sites. Judging from the messages on GC.com "General" forum, when caches like this crop up, they tend to be archived quickly after the first finder finds them in such a state. I can&#39;t speak for NC.com. as I don&#39;t use it often enough, but perhaps Icenians would be willing to vouch for how rigourously they would do this. Similarly, I can&#39;t speak for Geocachingworldwide - perhaps there is a user of that site who could vouvh for them?

    2. Request more info - since GAGB doesn&#39;t actually approve caches on any listing site, there&#39;s no way to make people do this, nor is there anyway to stop people from lying. Requesting more info would be like asking a cowboy builder to do the plastering properly. Some will, some won&#39;t.

    Option 1 seems like the best solution - see how quickly, and how well, each individual site tidies up its own listing after being notified of the error.

    Just to re-word and reiterate my point from earlier. My NC.com experience should have been an error that the approver could have picked up at the time of approval - not one which had a lack of information which could only be reported on by the first finder. This wasn&#39;t a cache which was misleading - everything to tell the approver that it was already on the system, and in the same place as an existing cache was included in the description.

    The double listing did no one any harm whatsoever, except that it uses up one extra iota of their server. It does, however, highlight that they aren&#39;t particularly careful with regards to their approval procedure.

    ADDENDUM:
    This isn&#39;t necessarily just an attack at NC.com, but rather a quick pointer that if standards slip, the approval process is lax, or the approvers just aren&#39;t bothered on any site than any rules or guidelines by any LOM will become worthless.

    It is also a suggestion that if an approval process on any site lacks attention, then I would also suggest that the same site would be less interested in following GAGB guidelines, even when negotiated with an LOM. I would argue that it is a knock-on effect of a lack of competence.

    This is not a criticism of any individual site - but a question: how do we tackle it?

  23. #23
    Team Spike Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Aug 4 2003, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Aug 4 2003, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by -SimonG@Aug 4 2003, 08:32 AM
    <!--QuoteBegin--MCL
    @Aug 4 2003, 02:20 AM
    - If he does, he therefore would also forbid it&#39;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".

    Actually he wouldn&#39;t - he&#39;s stated that he only patented &#39;geocaching&#39; to stop anyone else from doing it (and telling him he can&#39;t use it any more) - he&#39;s not going to stop other people from using the term.
    But we should be aware that this ***could*** change.[/b][/quote]
    Geocaching is trademarked in the US. Go to www.uspto.gov, select "Trademarks" as a search collection, click on "New User Form Search" and enter "geocaching".

    In the US (where Groundspeak is) if you don&#39;t crush anyone using the trademark the moment you find out they are using it you lose the rights to the trademark. For example, Jeep trademarked the seven slot grille. American General started making the Humvee 10 years ago with the seven slot grille. Now DaimlerChrylser (owners of Jeep) turn around and cry Trademark infringement. The Judge (a US judge) laughs at them and tells them they should have done this 10 years ago and that they lose.

    I don&#39;t know anything about US trademarks with respect to UK law, or even if they are recognized.

    BTW, good luck in getting geocaching.com to link to the GAGB. Maybe when hell freezes over...... :

    Groover
    http://www.britishideas.com/geocaching

    PS I&#39;m not a lawyer :lol:

  24. #24
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Indeed, this is also the reason you get the occasional news stories something along the lines of (and this one is true) The Disney corporation discovers that a playgroup in some godforsaken one-horse town in the back of beyond in wyoming had it&#39;s children paint a wall frieze of donald duck to brighten the place up.

    Only trouble was, they never asked permission, and Disney was forced to sue them, and oredr it removed, in case their failure to do so *this* time might jeopardise a future case against Megacorp Inc , when megacorp decides to make a movie about donald duck working his way round the farmyard, behind Daisy&#39;s back...


    Of course there were squeals of "how heartless" and "typical greedy capitalists" but in fact they were only doing what they had to in order to maintain their control of their duck. Blame the US law. It&#39;s not always what it&#39;s quacked up to be....



    (Donald Duck is trademark The Disney Corporation. Used without permission)

Posting Permissions

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