Approval of caches by GAGB

[westonwanderers]

So we have Geocaching.com, Navicaching.com, and potentially in future, several other cache hosting sites....

GAGB will not be able to determine what caches are approved and archived on all sites... What about caches on personal web pages? , and also, as we have discovered in other threads, GAGB enforcing rules on Geocaching.com, that are not geocaching.com rules, does cause people to get upset..

So, instead, consider this idea.

GAGB should have a link image, with the GAGB logo on, and 'Approved by' written somewhere on it, that will link back to GAGB.org.uk. This link image will be inserted into the cache description of any cache, on any cache hosting site (or indeed even a private webpage) , that complies with GAGB rules. It would be up to the cache owner to apply to GAGB for the right to show this image on the cache site, by either filling out a form at GAGB, or an email. I think it would be very wrong, however, for the cache owner to have to be a member of GAGB, for approval. The cache approval, should be on the merits of the cache, not the owner.

Now, a particular organisation, for example HCC who require certain guidelines to me met, would be able to identify those caches on its land that do not have this mark, and, if needed, take action to either have the cache physically removed , or request the owner gets GAGB approval.

This is not possible if the cache has been archived, or denied the permission of been hosted in the first place.... Also, by archiving a cache that does not meet guidelines set out by GAGB, may force these rogue caches underground, or onto Navicache, where GAGB currently has no say in if a cache is approved or not.

Wat ya think doods?

Tony.

[Icenians]

Excellent idea.

It shows a level of control over cache placement without impossing on others.

[Daisy&me]

Sounds good to me.

The GAGB site should also have a list of the caches that it has approved so it would be easy to check that caches have really been approved.

[Pharisee]

That's the first truly constuctive suggestion that I've seen posted for a long time (including my own :unsure: ). I think it would be workable.

John

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Daisy&me@Aug 7 2003, 02:36 PM
Sounds good to me.

The GAGB site should also have a list of the caches that it has approved so it would be easy to check that caches have really been approved.

Funny, but I seem to remember there was much talk in other threads about GAGB NOT approving caches..... now people seem to be saying that GAGB approving caches is a GOOD thing.

C'mon everyone, decide:

i) GAGB to be independant, to create guidelines, but not approve

ii) GAGB to "approve" caches to say it meets their guidelines.

You can't have BOTH!

paul

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by paul.blitz+Aug 7 2003, 05:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Aug 7 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Daisy&me@Aug 7 2003, 02:36 PM
Sounds good to me.

The GAGB site should also have a list of the caches that it has approved so it would be easy to check that caches have really been approved.

Funny, but I seem to remember there was much talk in other threads about GAGB NOT approving caches..... now people seem to be saying that GAGB approving caches is a GOOD thing.

C&#39;mon everyone, decide:

i) GAGB to be independant, to create guidelines, but not approve

ii) GAGB to "approve" caches to say it meets their guidelines.

You can&#39;t have BOTH&#33;

paul [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t think it&#39;s quite the same thing, Paul. The way I read the suggestion was that cg.com would still approve (or not) all new caches submitted according to the current cg.com &#39;guidelines&#39; and for most of the country (at present) that&#39;s all that would be needed. However, if the cache was to be placed in, say, Hampshire, for example and HCC had a rule that all caches on it&#39;s land must adhere to GAGB guide lines and carry the GAGB &#39;seal of approval&#39; then before the cache could be placed, the cache setter would have to apply to the GAGB. If the cache met the GAGB guidelines, approval would be given and all is sweetness and light. If it didn&#39;t meet the GAGB guidelines for some reason, there would be nothing to stop the cache setter finding a new place to hide it outside Hampshire where GAGB approval was not required.

Well, that&#39;s how I interpreted it, anyway.

John

[BugznElm&#39;r]

One positive aspect of this would be that it would allow the owners of existing caches to seek approval coz I just fired up Memory Map and there&#39;s, well, a load already in Hampshire already&#33;

[Kouros]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 7 2003, 06:46 PM
Well, that&#39;s how I interpreted it, anyway.

Hmm - I think we might need clarification, as I interpreted it quite differently from both....

I read it that the GAGB "approval" would work in a similar way as a badge of merit - there being nothing to stop the cache being placed without it, but without one, the LOM may be interested in having the cache removed if it contradicts their guidelines.

ie. I place a cache on HCC land in an Ammo Box which is not clearly marked as Harmless and that it is a Geocache. GC.com/NC.com/where-ever accepts the cache, but GAGB don&#39;t - the cache gets listed, but HCC (via GAGB?) note that a new cache has been placed contrary to their guidelines, and request it is removed, or physically remove it themselves.

The GAGB "Badge of Merit" (or whatever) could be unique to each cache with an individual number (other than GC.com&#39;s waypoints, so that it canwork across all listing sites) and a graphic posted on the cache webpage.

That&#39;s how I interpreted it - any other offers?

[MCL]

I&#39;m 50/50 on this. I can see the merits of the "badge of approval" type of thing, but I also don&#39;t want GAGB to get into teh business, however distantly related, of approving caches.


Hmm. I&#39;m gonna have to think about this one for a bit more.

[sonya :-)]

I guess if we have a set of guidelines we agree to work to, we are by implication "approving" some and "disapproving" others. If there was some seal of approval, I guess it wouldn&#39;t be for listing purposes, but purely that GAGB has checked out this cache and gave it the thumbs up. (As I understand the suggestion. If not then this is a different suggestion and I take full credit :P . )

Not saying if it is a good idea or not. But hey, it&#39;s an idea that when the pros and cons are weighed up might be beneficial or put in a file marked "An idea that might have been good but when we thought about it wasn&#39;t." Or something shorter that would fit on the spine of a lever arch file...or maybe a ring binder, depending on how many ideas we come up with.

Anyhoo. Interesting idea and one that the new committee should look into in the future, when elected, and everything is running nicely.

[Moss Trooper]

How can this be happening&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; As an ex approver.. Founder member of GAGB.. I was asked to stand for commitee.. and look what happened.. a conflict of interests.. how could I be able to do the two.. and now this..

GAGB can not approve caches.. who would be the approver.. and what guidelines would they use.. was painfully obvious that HCC guidelines should be for Hampshire and Hampshire alone. So you only have one set of guidelines for the rest of the country... those on the GC.com site. No other guidelines can apply..

GAGB was not formed to take on approval of caches but to get land owners to agree to caching on there land.

Leave the approving to the approvers.

[westonwanderers]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 8 2003, 12:19 AM
I&#39;m 50/50 on this. I can see the merits of the "badge of approval" type of thing, but I also don&#39;t want GAGB to get into teh business, however distantly related, of approving caches.

Either.

(i) GAGB should offer guidance, and be able to say if a particular cache is compliant or not, this would not effect its eligibility of been listed however.

(ii) GAGB should work with the cache hosting sites, to ensure only caches that are compliant are listed.

Currently, there are members of GAGB who moderate for GC.com, and determine if a cache is approved by using, not only GC.COM rules, but also GAGB guidelines.

A member of GAGB, who approves a cache based on GAGB guidelines, is by definition exactly the business you describe above, and therefore GAGB are already in &#39;the business&#39; of approving caches for listing.

Now from your post, I think that you would prefer (i), and that is exactly what my suggestion allows. At the moment, we in effect have (ii), which apparently you are not in favour of?



On a similar note, I was thinking more of what Kouros interpreted....
A cache on HCC land, could be listed without the &#39;Badge of Merit&#39;. This would not, by default, lead to it been removed, however; it might still meet guidelines anyhow. The difference is that HCC would have to be consulted directly by the cache owner to ask permission to place it on their land (to comply with GC.COM rules). By showing the badge, would allow the cache to come under the umbrella of GAGB, and therefore the permission would be given implicitly. I would imagine that getting approval through GAGB would be easier, than negotiating with HCC, (Tim & June have already done all the negotiating for us)


Tony.

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 8 2003, 08:42 AM
GAGB can not approve caches.. who would be the approver.. and what guidelines would they use.. was painfully obvious that HCC guidelines should be for Hampshire and Hampshire alone. So you only have one set of guidelines for the rest of the country... those on the GC.com site. No other guidelines can apply..

Hi, Moss... I glad that you haven&#39;t left us altogether

I think that, with hindsight, &#39;approval&#39; was an unfortunate choice of words when applied to the GAGB. It has caused a lot of confusion on this particular thread.
You are absolutely right. The only people that can &#39;approve&#39; caches for listing on the cg.com website are the gc.com appointed approvers.
However, as has already happened in Hampshire, the HCC want guidelines applied that go beyond those currently being used by gc.com.
I think what has been suggested is that if the cache setter wishes to place a cache on HCC land, he must show that his (or her) cache meets the HCC guidelines and not just the gc.com guidelines. He/she would be able to do that by submitting his gc.com approved cache to the GAGB. They would look at it and if all was well, they would give it their &#39;Stamp of Blessing&#39;. The HCC would then see the &#39;Stamp of Blessing&#39; on the cache page and know that the cache met their guidlines and not just those of gc.com. It would be an &#39;additive&#39; thing not an &#39;instead of&#39; thing.
Have I made sense?

[edit... whoops, got beaten to it ]

[Moss Trooper]

And if it doesn&#39;t meet with approval from GAGB.. but meets GC.com guidelines.. &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; remember it will proberbly be approved prior to it being submitted to GAGB.. if it is approved by a non UK approver.. how will they know whether it is within Hampshire or not?

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 8 2003, 09:24 AM
And if it doesn&#39;t meet with approval from GAGB.. but meets GC.com guidelines.. &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; remember it will proberbly be approved prior to it being submitted to GAGB.. if it is approved by a non UK approver.. how will they know whether it is within Hampshire or not?

The gc.com approvers don&#39;t need to know if it&#39;s in Hampshire or not. They&#39;re just approving to gc.com rules. They apply world wide.

If it doesn&#39;t meet with GAGB guidelines then it won&#39;t get their &#39;blessing&#39;. That doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be placed. It just means that it doesn&#39;t meet their guidelines and shouldn&#39;t be placed on (currently) HCC land. That&#39;s all.

[Moss Trooper]

So technically no caches can be planted on HCC land.. as there is no way they can be approved to HCC guidelines..

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 8 2003, 09:51 AM
So technically no caches can be planted on HCC land.. as there is no way they can be approved to HCC guidelines..

At this point in time, technically, you&#39;re probably right unless the cache setter approaches the HCC and askes for permission. But technically, we&#39;re all supposed to do that anyway, where ever we want to place a cache.

[westonwanderers]

And if it doesn&#39;t meet with approval from GAGB.. but meets GC.com guidelines.. &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; remember it will proberbly be approved prior to it being submitted to GAGB.. if it is approved by a non UK approver.. how will they know whether it is within Hampshire or not?

It will be shown to all on GC.com, that it was on HCC land, and did not meet HCC/GAGB guidelines...

It would not be long before someone part of GAGB, or HCC would do something about it, maybe in just hours after the cache appearing on GC.com .... What would then happen would be as follows:

1) An Email would be sent by a member of GAGB to the owner of the Cache stating the problems with it, and why it could cause problems with HCC. Usually this would mean the owner would temporarily disable the cache, correct the problems, get it approved by GAGB, and re-enable their cache. This would happen 90% of the time.

2) If the cache owner ignores this request, then a message can be sent to the hosting site, to explain the problems. GC.com would archive the cache in this case.

3) If, the cache was hosted on a personal website, or on a hosting site who&#39;s admins ignored the request, then someone, under the explicit authority from GAGB, would physically go and remove the offending cache from its location. This would happen rarely, and would be the last resort if all other means of resolving the problems had been exhausted.


Tony

[Teasel]

Could someone please clarify the HCC&#39;s position on cache placement, as I&#39;m a bit thick&#33;

Are the HCC happy with any caching on their land which meets these guidelines? (Whether listed on GC.com or NC.com etc, and whether placed or found by a GAGB member or not).

Or was the HCCs understanding that they were delegating the authority to accept/reject caches (and cachers?) to a particular body of geocachers (eg GC.com / GAGB), on the condition that these rules were applied by that body?

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between the two. There is no mention of approval process in the guidelines; merely a written list of how the HCC expect geocachers to behave on their land. And remember, many of the guidelines apply equally to people seeking caches, not just those hiding them.

By all means let&#39;s have a seal of approval (free advertising for GAGB if nothing else&#33. But since there is no mention of GAGB in the guidelines, I think it&#39;s wrong to suggest that we should take for ourselves the responsibility of deciding which caches are or are not listed.

Our energies should be spent promoting geocaching, not policing it.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by westonwanderers@Aug 8 2003, 10:57 AM

And if it doesn&#39;t meet with approval from GAGB.. but meets GC.com guidelines.. &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; remember it will proberbly be approved prior to it being submitted to GAGB.. if it is approved by a non UK approver.. how will they know whether it is within Hampshire or not?

It will be shown to all on GC.com, that it was on HCC land, and did not meet HCC/GAGB guidelines...

It would not be long before someone part of GAGB, or HCC would do something about it, maybe in just hours after the cache appearing on GC.com .... What would then happen would be as follows:

1) An Email would be sent by a member of GAGB to the owner of the Cache stating the problems with it, and why it could cause problems with HCC. Usually this would mean the owner would temporarily disable the cache, correct the problems, get it approved by GAGB, and re-enable their cache. This would happen 90% of the time.

2) If the cache owner ignores this request, then a message can be sent to the hosting site, to explain the problems. GC.com would archive the cache in this case.

3) If, the cache was hosted on a personal website, or on a hosting site who&#39;s admins ignored the request, then someone, under the explicit authority from GAGB, would physically go and remove the offending cache from its location. This would happen rarely, and would be the last resort if all other means of resolving the problems had been exhausted.


Tony

Hmm, this raises two points:

1 - Caches approved by the GAGB? Hmm, this seems like a switch.

2 - Removal of caches under the authority of the GAGB.

Pardon me, but where did all this come from?

[westonwanderers]

The key phrase was:

..And if it doesn&#39;t meet with approval...

There would be a cache that confilcts with the requests of HCC, and would be on their land. GAGB would be under oblication to sort out this matter, otherwise the past negotiations with HCC would be, well, pointless, and HCC might decide to impose blanket bans to prevent such things occuring again regardless of what was said. An association without teath, doesn&#39;t have much say.


Note, that if the cache did, by chance , happen to meet the guidelines set down, but the owner decided not to get the &#39;mark&#39; of approval, then GAGB would have no authority to do anything. The owner would still be under obligation to get approval from HCC directly.

[westonwanderers]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 8 2003, 11:11 AM
Hmm, this raises two points:

1 - Caches approved by the GAGB? Hmm, this seems like a switch.

2 - Removal of caches under the authority of the GAGB.

Pardon me, but where did all this come from?

It&#39;s not a switch.

The cache owner would be trusted to submit a cache to GC.com that, would in certain areas be required to meet the GAGB guidelines. GAGB would not need to specifically approve a cache before listing on the site, it would be assumed that the cache owner would already be aware of the guidelines.

GAGB would only take action if the cache did not come up to scratch.... otherwise, GAGB would play no part in the approval of the listing.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by westonwanderers@Aug 8 2003, 11:33 AM
GAGB would only take action if the cache did not come up to scratch.... otherwise, GAGB would play no part in the approval of the listing.

I can&#39;t see anything in the mandate of the association covering any form of "take action". I even posted a question about this a short while back.

Are these "your ideas" or have they come from somewhere else?

[westonwanderers]

Just my own opinions,

Though, I would expect that others will have the same options as me (in spirit anyhow), but arrived at them from different avenues....

This IS a message board, when one can speak ones fealings, these are mine.



Tony.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by westonwanderers@Aug 8 2003, 11:59 AM
This IS a message board, when one can speak ones fealings, these are mine.

Darn right ... I just wanted to know if you&#39;d seen something the rest of us hadn&#39;t&#33; :lol:

[sonya :-)]

I&#39;m just thinking around the topic, so stick with me if I&#39;m waffling...

SKIP TO SUMMARY IF YOU LIKE

We have a set of guidelines that we hope to get land owners on side with. I think we should get away from this HCC line of thinking. I know they were developed with HCC, but we want to apply them more nationally.

Say I owned a load of land and GAGB approached me with their very reasonable and well thought out guidelines and said they are representing the majority of cachers, who have all signed up to the guidelines. I guess I would say "Great, cache at will". But I think I would also want to know how GAGB are to keep a handle on whether or not the caches on my land DID actually meet the guidelines.

I know we are doing this just about in practice anyway, with all UK caches on Gc.com being approved to our higher standard. If this was formalised then the majority of UK caches would meet the GAGB guidelines and their approval by GC.com would therefore also be a stamp of approval from GAGB, as the guidelines would be the same.

Now that does not speak for other listing sites. Maybe a seal of approval system would work for them. Would they want it? Also, how would we keep track of caches where the land owner requires additional guidelines? Are we aiming for 1 set of guidelines (easy), or a more tailored approach (more useful, very difficult to manage.)

SUMMARY OF MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER

1 Currently all UK caches on GC.com meet the GAGB guidelines and there is by implication, approval by both organisations.
2 We should formalise this. (MAYBE using an icon on all GC.Com UK caches)
3 I think we should try to get as many sites as possible working to the same basic conditions.
4 I don&#39;t know how we deal with land owners who want special guidelines.
5 I think we should wait until the committee is in place before we break a leg trying to run before we can walk.

[Moss Trooper]

Originally posted by sonya :-)@Aug 8 2003, 12:45 PM
1 Currently all UK caches on GC.com meet the GAGB guidelines and there is by implication, approval by both organisations.

I am sorry to disagree but they do not.. There are quite a few areas that are covered in GC.com that are not coverd in GAGB.. and visa versa.. Comercialism.. i.e Pubs etc.. potential terrorist targets. Nothing in GC.com about rights of way.. Sams.. SSSI etc..

[sonya :-)]

Sorry, maybe I have misunderstood:

Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

PS I mean new caches. Not ones approved historically.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by sonya :-)@Aug 8 2003, 12:45 PM
1 Currently all UK caches on GC.com meet the GAGB guidelines and there is by implication, approval by both organisations.

Great points Sonya ... however I think that tihis is not entirly accurate ... I&#39;ve come across quite a few UK caches that "bend the guidelines" ... I now hand you over to my good friend Dave Letterman for a rundown for the top three broken commandments that Team BugznElm&#39;r have come across:

"At number 3 we have - caches containing stuff unsafe for kids (matches and lighters and stuff ...

At number 2 we have - sweets in caches :-(

And the number one guideline busting find - stinky bin bags containing a cache&#33;"

Thanks Dave&#33;

This is without taking into account landowners permission and visible disturbance to the area.

My own rule with our caches will be that they will be in the stated spot for no more than 2 years, afterwards they will either be moved (100 m maybe) or retrieved and placed elsewhere ... depending on the impact.

[sonya :-)]

If rules are bent it is without approval and it is up to the committee to show the land owners that there are guidelines and that we agree to stick to them. (I am not trying to engender a debate about the validity/content of the guidelines, just trying to get my head around the more strategic view.)

[Tim and June]

The discussion in this thread is very obviously very constructive in that it gives feedback, and ideas to those who will sit on the committee.

With that in mind, please believe that we have no intention of stifling the discussion, but I feel it is worth pointing out how the current caretaking committee envisioned the role that the GAGB would have.

Primarily, the GAGB would act as a negotiator and initial contact point with/for land owners and an interface with the cachers.

The committee should attempt to get land owners to accept the current guidelines as they are, but we understand that there will be special cases where a land owner has specific causes for concern. Elsewhere, Paul Blitz mentioned a really feasible scenario which I will steal and use here. If a national body, for example Inland Waterways control all the canals in the UK (I may be wrong on the title and responsibility but the example works) and they say "No cache is to be placed within six feet of a canal bank but other than that we are happy with your guidelines", then that extra guideline should be added to the general guidelines because it is applicable to all the canals in the UK. However, if a council, or other non-national body say "we dont want caches within six feet of any river bank on our land but we are happy with the rest of your guidelines", then that extra guideline would apply to only that land owner and would be stated as such.

If a land owner has a problem with a particular cache, they could contact the GAGB or the cacher directly if they so choose. If the GAGB is contacted and informed of a problem, we would have to contact the cacher and request that they deal with the issue/issues raised by the land owner. If the cacher refuses to co-operate or fails to respond, we would have to report that fact to the land owner who would of course have the ultimate solution, that of removing the cache. It would keep land owners happier if we could ask Admin to place the cache in "Temporary Unavailable" status while the issues are resolved, the cache owner still has the power to make that cache available again himself, but obviously it would be better if he were to conform to the land owners wishes. The last point is the main reason why it would be beneficial to have Admin on the committee.

The caretaking committee had already discussed and organised a telephone number which could be given as a point of contact on members cache boxes in the event that a member does not wish to give their own contact details.

If all cachers agreed to operate within those guidelines, the GAGB would have a much stronger argument when asking a land owner for blanket permission.

Obviously the GAGB will recognise any listing site which is prepared to abide by the accepted guidelines. I think that is now down to just 2 sites now, as geocachingworldwide.com seems to have disapeared.

[Tim and June]

In reply to Twasel:

Are the HCC happy with any caching on their land which meets these guidelines? (Whether listed on GC.com or NC.com etc, and whether placed or found by a GAGB member or not).

Yes &#33;

Or was the HCCs understanding that they were delegating the authority to accept/reject caches (and cachers?) to a particular body of geocachers (eg GC.com / GAGB), on the condition that these rules were applied by that body?

Not in so many words, but yes, in a way they did. HCC were very happy that they had direct and easy contact with the admin/approvers for GC.com. This did give them some assurance that there would be some measure of control and this would help to encourage responsible caching on their land.

When we resigned from Admin, the whole agreement virtually collapsed particularly since some of the posts on the UK forum were very rude to one of the top managers. In the end they were reassured that the GAGB would attempt to maintain the status.

They also wanted to impose a few more restrictions on caches. For example, they initially wanted half a mile between caches but accepted that we would like the guidelines to be adopted nationally and in the end agreed to reduce this to our current one-tenth of a mile.

I would like to reiterate here, that June and I were not alone in these negotiations, The Bramblers too put in more work than the vast majority of you will ever know.

[Icenians]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r+Aug 8 2003, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BugznElm&#39;r @ Aug 8 2003, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sonya :-)@Aug 8 2003, 12:45 PM
1 Currently all UK caches on GC.com meet the GAGB guidelines and there is by implication, approval by both organisations.

Great points Sonya ... however I think that tihis is not entirly accurate ... I&#39;ve come across quite a few UK caches that "bend the guidelines" ... I now hand you over to my good friend Dave Letterman for a rundown for the top three broken commandments that Team BugznElm&#39;r have come across:

"At number 3 we have - caches containing stuff unsafe for kids (matches and lighters and stuff ...

At number 2 we have - sweets in caches :-(

And the number one guideline busting find - stinky bin bags containing a cache&#33;"

Thanks Dave&#33;

This is without taking into account landowners permission and visible disturbance to the area.

My own rule with our caches will be that they will be in the stated spot for no more than 2 years, afterwards they will either be moved (100 m maybe) or retrieved and placed elsewhere ... depending on the impact. [/b][/quote]
The only way of policing 2 and 3 is if cachers take the offending items out when they find them. I would suggest that controlling what goes into a cache from a web site is impossible.

Kev

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 8 2003, 03:14 PM
The only way of policing 2 and 3 is if cachers take the offending items out when they find them. I would suggest that controlling what goes into a cache from a web site is impossible.

Kev

Yes, a cacher could get a bad name simply because of the visitors to his/her cache dumping sweets there

Visitors to the cache need to follow the same guidelines too&#33;

[sonya :-)]

Very useful clarification T&J. I suppose we could have a list of core guidelines and a sort of schedule of special conditions from certain land owners. All the schedules would be accessible to cache planters.

[Motley Crew]

My £17.50&#39;s worth:-

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 8 2003, 03:14 PM
The only way of policing 2 and 3 is if cachers take the offending items out when they find them. I would suggest that controlling what goes into a cache from a web site is impossible.

Kev

Agreed. The point is the cache would hopefully start off being within the guidelines. Nothing in this world is 100% controllable - but it is hoped that the majority of cachers would respect & follow the guidelines. There will always be rogues but their impact would be minimised by agreed &#39;cache placing&#39; guidelines and &#39;&#39;finders&#39; assisting by removing any unsuitable items (as is often the case now).

Yes, a cacher could get a bad name simply because of the visitors to his/her cache dumping sweets there

Visitors to the cache need to follow the same guidelines too&#33;

It is the responsibility of the cache owner to maintain his/her cache and therefore they should be able to ensure that anything &#39;dumped&#39; in their cache would be removed fairly quickly thereby ensuring they kept their &#39;Good Name&#39;. As Kev (Icenians) said &#39;visitors&#39; can also remove any offending items, thus reducing the likelyhood of offending items being in the cache for any lengthy periods.

[MCL]

Originally posted by Motley Crew@Aug 9 2003, 02:14 AM


It is the responsibility of the cache owner to maintain his/her cache and therefore they should be able to ensure that anything &#39;dumped&#39; in their cache would be removed fairly quickly thereby ensuring they kept their &#39;Good Name&#39;. As Kev (Icenians) said &#39;visitors&#39; can also remove any offending items, thus reducing the likelyhood of offending items being in the cache for any lengthy periods.

The only problem I can see here is that you are effectively suggesting that a cache owner visits each of his caches after every person finds it just to make sure that that person has not placed something in it that contravenes the guidelines. Remember that a visitor does not have to log what he leaves in a cache (I know they often do but you cannot be sure) and also, they don;t have to even log the visit if they don&#39;t want to.

This could be a bit of a bind, methinks.

[Motley Crew]

Originally posted by MCL+Aug 9 2003, 12:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MCL @ Aug 9 2003, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Motley Crew@Aug 9 2003, 02:14 AM


It is the responsibility of the cache owner to maintain his/her cache and therefore they should be able to ensure that anything &#39;dumped&#39; in their cache would be removed fairly quickly thereby ensuring they kept their &#39;Good Name&#39;. As Kev (Icenians) said &#39;visitors&#39; can also remove any offending items, thus reducing the likelyhood of offending items being in the cache for any lengthy periods.

The only problem I can see here is that you are effectively suggesting that a cache owner visits each of his caches after every person finds it just to make sure that that person has not placed something in it that contravenes the guidelines. Remember that a visitor does not have to log what he leaves in a cache (I know they often do but you cannot be sure) and also, they don;t have to even log the visit if they don&#39;t want to.

This could be a bit of a bind, methinks.[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not suggesting that a cache owner visits their cache after each finder - that obviously is not practical. What I meant was that as part of a &#39;regular&#39; maintenance visit (timescale to be determined by the cache owner) offending items can easily be removed. Also if a finder discovers offending items they too can remove them. It seems to me to be a quite simple practical and effective scheme to maintain ones &#39;good name&#39;.

[plaid-dragon]

IMHO the idea of a GAGB "seal of approval" is a good one, as long as the actual approval process remains under the current system (that&#39;s current at the time of approval, not current as they stand at the moment, just for clarification) on whichever listing engine is used and GAGB are adding their badge of merit to caches meeting the GAGB guidelines.

re: inappropriate items in caches: all geocachers should be caching responsibly. To my mind this includes not placing caches with inappropriate articles in them, not leaving inappropriate items and removing offending items from caches they find. Okay, cache maintenance is the responsibility of the cache placer, but if you&#39;ve found the cache anyway it takes no extra time to remove something that shouldn&#39;t be in there. (On Sunday I found a cache that had a half-eaten pack of sweets in it&#33;&#33;&#33; I removed them&#33; )

[MCL]

Originally posted by plaid-dragon@Aug 12 2003, 12:34 PM
(On Sunday I found a cache that had a half-eaten pack of sweets in it&#33;&#33;&#33; I removed them&#33; )

They weren&#39;t half-eaten, they were half-left.

[Teasel]

Originally posted by MCL@Aug 13 2003, 12:58 AM
They weren&#39;t half-eaten, they were half-left.

No, the bag was just twice as large as it needed to be&#33; :P