Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Expansion of the GAGB guidelines

  1. #1
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Currently we have guidelines set up that satisfy a council that covers, taking Wales and Scotland into account a small part of the UK (Wales/Scotland are poorly represented here to say the least - one point alone - we think the cache notes should be in Welsh/Gaelic where appropriate and are working on a Welsh version now). Also at present, we have some calling for these guidelines to be made the default approving guidelines for the UK ... OK, that seems sensible. However, what does everyone think will/may/should happen when we are not playing to one set of guidelines but 10, dozen, 50 sets or more. Are we eventually looking at a situation where we should have regional approvers?

    Thoughts?

    Elm'r

  2. #2
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    The guidelines, as I understand them, are not limited to the one location, although they are at present only recognised by the HCC.

    I see no reason why the same guidelines, if acceptable to the individual land owning/management (LOM) bodies, could not be applied across the country, negating the need for regional approvers. After all, the GAGB committee would not be the approvers of the caches - they would only represent the cachers.

    However, at the same time there is no doubt that an individual LOM might have individual needs, and they must be taken into account. This is the one reason why I think that GAGB guidelines are not - and could not - be merely undertaken by any individual listing site's own guidelines.

    GAGB would be in the position to negotiate these requirements, and help cachers of these listing sites to follow them, by making them aware of them. It may be merely a case of an approver for a lsiting site sending a quick email asking, does your cache match these guidelines, as adopted by Cardiff/Bedfordshire/Oxfordshire/Wherever, and for future finders to note that the cache may be placed against those LOM requirements if they find it to be so at a later date.

    I would worry less about the expansion of GAGB, and more about making people aware that GAGB would not infringe upon the game as they know it, but rather make it more palatable to LOM's.

  3. #3
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 2 2003, 10:09 AM
    Currently we have guidelines set up that satisfy a council that covers, taking Wales and Scotland into account a small part of the UK (Wales/Scotland are poorly represented here to say the least - one point alone - we think the cache notes should be in Welsh/Gaelic where appropriate and are working on a Welsh version now). Also at present, we have some calling for these guidelines to be made the default approving guidelines for the UK ... OK, that seems sensible. However, what does everyone think will/may/should happen when we are not playing to one set of guidelines but 10, dozen, 50 sets or more. Are we eventually looking at a situation where we should have regional approvers?

    Thoughts?

    Elm'r
    Yes, HCC does only cover a small part of the country, but I would imagine that HCC's concerns pretty much mirror the concerns of not only the vast majority of other county councils, but also of many other landowners.

    When *anyone* approaches a landowner, they are FAR more likely to get a positive resolution when they go with not just "positive, sensible suggestions", but with ideas (eg guidelines) that have been shown to work elsewhere.

    By preference, I think we would ALL prefer that landowners could be persuaded to "sign up" to a standard set of guidelines, as that makes EVERYONEs lives far simpler.

    At the moment, GAGB do not have any of their own guidelines (that is yet to happen) but I suspect that (i) initially they will mirror the HCC guidelines; but (ii) over time they will become a super-set of the HCC guidelines: in that way we end up with the one set of guidelines that meets 99% of landowners wishes.

    Example: HCC do not want caches placed in plastic bags. A.N. Other landowner may not mind..... but there is no "harm" in leaving the "no bags" rule there, even for that landwoner.

    I think you will see GAGB working with cachers and landowners to try and work to a single set of rules, wherever poossible. That way, fewer mistakes will happen.


    Paul

Posting Permissions

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