Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Approval of caches by GAGB

  1. #1
    westonwanderers Guest

    Default

    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    This is not possible if the cache has been archived, or denied the permission of been hosted in the first place....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.

  2. #2
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Excellent idea.

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

  3. #3
    Daisy&me Guest

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    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
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  5. #5
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    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
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  7. #7
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    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;

  8. #8
    Kouros Guest

    Default

    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?

  9. #9
    MCL Guest

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    sonya :-) Guest

    Default

    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.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    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.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  12. #12
    westonwanderers Guest

    Default

    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.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    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 ]
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    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?
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    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.
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Posting Permissions

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