I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

[uktim]

I can see where the reviewers and ex-reviewers are coming from here, and I agree that it may not have been wrong to take the pragmatic approach at the time. I'm actually not criticising them for doing this (even though it might seem like it!), more for putting forward the principle that this was the "responsible" approach and that people should be discouraged from visiting the FMD affected zones. When in fact the opposite was the case.

All I'm doing is suggesting that next time you check official advice, rather than simply the knee-jerk response from a few farmers. Yes, the reviewer might choose to ignore the former in favour of the latter, for PR reasons (so I also agree with uktim!).

Really, what I objected to was the strong inference that following the official guidelines was inherently irresponsible. Probably I would have accepted it much more easily if it had been put forward like this;

"I know that there's no official reason to disable all these caches, but feedback indicates that local landowners would prefer to see caching discouraged in this area for the time being. So until further notice we've disabled caches which appear to be in sensitive areas. We'll keep an eye on the situation and will enable them once we've been given the all-clear. In the meantime, feel free to use the footpaths in the areas in question according to official DEFRA advice, but please don't log any disabled caches you may encounter.".

Unless I'm mistaken geocaching has no brief or funding to promote local tourism?

If so then the role of the reviewers to to look after the interests of geocaching and geocachers. Things might be different if they were paid by the local tourist board

[Happy Humphrey]

Why?

The point of disabling the caches was to demonstrate to the landowner that GC.com aren't allowing geocaching in the area. As a PR exercise if nothing else.
However, GC.com can't actually prevent people from walking a footpath. If the footpath is open (and almost all of them were during the recent outbreak), there's a danger that someone might just accidentally bring a GPSr on their stroll and find a cache at the side of the path. Which would be fine until they log it, at which point the landowner will be less than impressed with the "ban" on caching.

Unless I'm mistaken geocaching has no brief or funding to promote local tourism?

If so then the role of the reviewers to to look after the interests of geocaching and geocachers. Things might be different if they were paid by the local tourist board

It's not meant to promote anything, merely to emphasise that although caching is discouraged it doesn't mean that you're not allowed to walk the footpaths.
Otherwise, disabling caches might seem to infer that such areas are out of bounds: which would be inaccurate and confusing.

[von-horst]

I know its not strictly on-topic, but has anyone actually gone to check whether the caches are still there?

If they are not, surely this discussion is all rather pointlessly academic?

[Alan White]

Well, I guess I'm supposed to be in the "anti" group, whatever that is.

Me, too, I guess. But anti what, as the thread has moved on? In any case, it doesn't further the debate to present it as black and white as the point is surely that, so far as caching is concerned, there are many shades of grey depending on where the cache is.

My OP wasn't so much against the reviewers' policy of disabling caches close to F&M outbreaks. I expressed my views on that at the time and I thought that a blanket disabling of caches wasn't going to occur, then or in the future. Clearly I misunderstood or I would have questioned the policy further at the time. I was more surprised, as I've said more than once but it keeps getting lost in the F&M debate, by the archiving of a cache which was disabled by a reviewer but, as far as we know, had nothing wrong with it other than that it used to be within an arbitrary circle. Curiously, caches on which I and others have posted SBAs because they're obviously missing and unmaintained remain active. So not for the first time I'm puzzled about what rules are being applied here.

However, the debate about caching policy during a future F&M or similar outbreak is important so let's stick to that.

It should be evident that F&M affects only the countryside, and most countryside caches are along public rights of way. We shouldn't need to remind ourselves that RoWs are special: they have specific legal status and give us specific rights to use them (but not, to avoid the probable retort, to place caches on them) and they can be closed or diverted only under specific circumstances. However, to landowners RoWs are an annoyance and a cost, and F&M provides a ready excuse for landowners to close them illegally. I gave one example earlier where this was done locally and I know of others, some of which were a long way from the outbreak. I'm sure that everyone in both sides of the debate is keen to present caching in a good light but I don't see how encouraging a landowner to break the law in illegally closing a RoW achieves that. RoWs are kept open principally by cachers and other walkers, and most RoWs simply wouldn't be usable if it were not for that activity.

Groundspeak reviewers aren't in charge of caching in the UK, they don't represent UK cachers, nor do UK cachers have any say in their appointment. Reviewers do have the power to disable listings when they think it appropriate but like all power it needs to be exercised wisely. Reviewers have made it clear that in the event of another F&M or similar outbreak they're not going to follow official advice but instead immediately disable all caches they think shouldn't be visited, regardless of whether the cache is in the middle of a field of cows, along a RoW which has been illegally closed, or in a city centre. I think that's a foolish policy and knowledgable cachers like reviewers should be able to do better.

[PopUpPirate]

You can of course decide to find and log the cache whether it is disabled or not - ie make up your own mind

[uktim]

Groundspeak reviewers aren't in charge of caching in the UK, they don't represent UK cachers, nor do UK cachers have any say in their appointment. Reviewers do have the power to disable listings when they think it appropriate but like all power it needs to be exercised wisely. Reviewers have made it clear that in the event of another F&M or similar outbreak they're not going to follow official advice but instead immediately disable all caches they think shouldn't be visited, regardless of whether the cache is in the middle of a field of cows, along a RoW which has been illegally closed, or in a city centre. I think that's a foolish policy and knowledgable cachers like reviewers should be able to do better.

I think that you have unreasonable expectations here. How do you expect reviewers to work out which caches to disable due to the finer deatils of their location? I'm sure they'd all like to have enough spare time to do such things on a cache by cache basis. Even if they had so much time free I rather hope that they'd use it doing something more productive or enjoyable

[Graculus]

Groundspeak reviewers aren't in charge of caching in the UK, they don't represent UK cachers, nor do UK cachers have any say in their appointment.

Mr White - as you clearly know how the process works I'm sure it would be very informative to the entire UK caching community for you to explain how the new moderator, the latest reviewer announced this weekend and of course my alter ego Graculus were actually chosen for their respective jobs.

After all, the reviewers and moderators are providing a valued service to the UK Caching community and I think it only fair you explain to your fellow cachers why these people in particular were chosen?

Chris (MrB)

[dodgydaved]

Groundspeak reviewers aren't in charge of caching in the UK

Perhaps you could explain to us who is "in charge" of UK caching.

Perhaps the GSP lackeys or the triad who seem to decide on GSP guidelines and how they should be applied?

they don't represent UK cachers,

Again who does, Alan, you have said reviewers don't and also many times that GAGB doesn't, so who does?

nor do UK cachers have any say in their appointment.

In my, admittledly incredibly limited experience, UK reviewers were first suggested by members of the UK community - but are vetted - and sometimes vetoed - by GSP lackeys and the world wide community of volunteer reviewers.

I think that's a foolish policy and knowledgable cachers like reviewers should be able to do better.

Then I have no doubt that you are as relieved that I am no longer a reviewer as I am that I no longer have to defend my actions against pedanticism and my own, obviously incredibly incorrect, perception of what may be the right and sensible thing to do.

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm sure that everyone in both sides of the debate is keen to present caching in a good light but I don't see how encouraging a landowner to break the law in illegally closing a RoW achieves that.

It's clear that the main priority is to present geocaching.com in a good light to the landowner. That's what I realised which caused me to have a little more sympathy with the reviewers' stance.

[The Hornet]

Reviewers do have the power to disable listings when they think it appropriate but like all power it needs to be exercised wisely.

I hope that has always been the case, and I have every confidence it will be in the future.

Reviewers have made it clear that in the event of another F&M or similar outbreak they're not going to follow official advice but instead immediately disable all caches they think shouldn't be visited, regardless of whether the cache is in the middle of a field of cows, along a RoW which has been illegally closed, or in a city centre. I think that's a foolish policy and knowledgable cachers like reviewers should be able to do better.

I think you're in danger of putting words into other people's mouths with that statement. Although I'm no longer involved in that sort of decision I do have experience of the sort of discussion that takes place within the local review team. I confident that should a similar circumstance arise, the new review team will carefully consider the actual location of the caches before disabling them. I suspect they would treat an urban micro quite differently from a cache by the side of a field likely to contain cattle.

I for one certainly trust them to do what they consider best for the local situation. They have a damned sight better approach than some other reviewers.

[The Hornet]

Groundspeak reviewers aren't in charge of caching in the UK, they don't represent UK cachers, nor do UK cachers have any say in their appointment.

Actually they do. The initial recommendation comes from one or more UK cachers - the existing local reviewers. These people are as much cachers as anybody. Once put forward they undergo a confidential "peer review" as ddd has said but the nomination is certainly 100% UK led.

[Lost in Space]

The point of disabling the caches was to demonstrate to the landowner that GC.com aren't allowing geocaching in the area. As a PR exercise if nothing else.

Perhaps The Hornet or DodgyDave can answer this:- Were any/all landowners informed of the decision to disable any caches?

..until they log it, at which point the landowner will be less than impressed with the "ban" on caching.

Do landowners, as a whole, check to see who has logged caches on their land?

.....there's a danger that someone might just accidentally bring a GPSr on their stroll and find a cache at the side of the path.

Wasn't that a Monty Python sketch?

[The Hornet]

Perhaps The Hornet or DodgyDave can answer this:- Were any/all landowners informed of the decision to disable any caches?

Not by the reviewers involved, no. I don't know whether the cache owners told them.

[Happy Humphrey]

Perhaps you could explain to us who is "in charge" of UK caching.

AFAIK there's no governing body, and no-one who can take overall responsibility for removing caches, or for directing people to remove them. I didn't think that Alan inferred that there was.

[Alan White]

How do you expect reviewers to work out which caches to disable due to the finer deatils of their location?

May I suggest that you read further back up the thread? It is exactly the point that a reviewer is not in such a position and the decision should therefore be left to the cache owner.

[Alan White]

It's clear that the main priority is to present geocaching.com in a good light to the landowner. That's what I realised which caused me to have a little more sympathy with the reviewers' stance.

(Bold mine). Agreed, but the good of Groundspeak isn't necessarily the good of UK caching.

[Alan White]

I think you're in danger of putting words into other people's mouths with that statement.

I confident that should a similar circumstance arise, the new review team will carefully consider the actual location of the caches before disabling them.

I suspect they would treat an urban micro quite differently from a cache by the side of a field likely to contain cattle.

Not at all. Further up the thread Deceangi has said that in any future outbreak all caches within a PZ would be disabled without any regard for the nature of the cache location. Indeed, it's this very statement that I take issue with.

[Alan White]

Actually they do. The initial recommendation comes from one or more UK cachers - the existing local reviewers.

That's a bit like saying that we all elected Gordon Brown as PM because 25% of those who voted at the last election voted Labour :wacko:.

[Alan White]

AFAIK there's no governing body, and no-one who can take overall responsibility for removing caches, or for directing people to remove them. I didn't think that Alan inferred that there was.

Exactly so. Thanks for the clarification.

[agentmancuso]

It should be evident that F&M affects only the countryside, and most countryside caches are along public rights of way. We shouldn't need to remind ourselves that RoWs are special: they have specific legal status and give us specific rights to use them (but not, to avoid the probable retort, to place caches on them) and they can be closed or diverted only under specific circumstances. However, to landowners RoWs are an annoyance and a cost, and F&M provides a ready excuse for landowners to close them illegally. I gave one example earlier where this was done locally and I know of others, some of which were a long way from the outbreak. I'm sure that everyone in both sides of the debate is keen to present caching in a good light but I don't see how encouraging a landowner to break the law in illegally closing a RoW achieves that. RoWs are kept open principally by cachers and other walkers, and most RoWs simply wouldn't be usable if it were not for that activity.

True. Arguably, when a landowner, whether public or private, attempts to close a ROW, (or in Scotland to restrict access to any open land) then cachers and other walkers have a moral duty to resist this illegal encroachment of our civil rights by specifically selecting these areas to exercise our rights of access.

During the last F&M circus, some hillwalkers did exactly this, targeting supposedly "closed" areas for mass gatherings. I'm naming no names, but you know who you are h34r:

[Happy Humphrey]

During the last F&M circus, some hillwalkers did exactly this, targeting supposedly "closed" areas for mass gatherings. I'm naming no names, but you know who you are h34r:

I think you must mean in the 2001 outbreak? I don't think that any areas outside the IOM were closed during the most recent F&M "circus".

[agentmancuso]

I think you must mean in the 2001 outbreak? I don't think that any areas outside the IOM were closed during the most recent F&M "circus".

Yes, quiet right. Excuse the solipsism, I was referring to the last outbreak that affected Scotland.

[sandvika]

Well, I think the irony is delicious and Alan kindly pointed it out.

The cacher apparently lives in Cambridge (now?) according to their profile and has apparently had a gap of about a year in caching and then logged 3 caches.

So, it is corny that perfectly good caches have been archived by reviewer action alone (did they go to collect the containers by any chance, or have they now created geolitter?) More COTI than CITO, I would suggest.

However, it is even more corny that the person who posted the SBAs on parts 1 and 3 of the series is "a Yorkshireman stranded in Lancs", not even local. So as a Lancastrian by birth (and the wars of the roses are ongoing ) I feel honour bound to watch this cachers caches and post SBAs if any of them have been disabled too long

What remains is for part 2 to be put out of its misery - it was also disabled during the FMD outbreak and has not been re-enabled, but has not had SBA posted - and some enterprising local cacher to visit them then relist them. There's no shortage of cachers around Woking!

I'm almost tempted to do it myself, but they are a little outside our patch.

[Jaz666]

However, it is even more corny that the person who posted the SBAs on parts 1 and 3 of the series is "a Yorkshireman stranded in Lancs", not even local. So as a Lancastrian by birth (and the wars of the roses are ongoing ) I feel honour bound to watch this cachers caches and post SBAs if any of them have been disabled too long

The personal attack was uncalled for.

I take my analytical skills from my day job, and occasionally put them to use with GSAK to help the reviewers out (who at the time numbered one plus a new recruit), and I ever get is personal attacks, most of them through private EMail or on the cache pages themselves.
At least I have the decency to use my main account, and not resort to using sockpuppets.

I really couldn't care less about the F&M situation in this instance, it was just one of many caches that were disabled over a year ago, and had no logs from their owner indicating the caches were being sorted, so I flagged them up so the reviewers could cast their eye over the listings.

[fraggle69]

The personal attack was uncalled for.

I take my analytical skills from my day job, and occasionally put them to use with GSAK to help the reviewers out (who at the time numbered one plus a new recruit), and I ever get is personal attacks, most of them through private EMail or on the cache pages themselves.
At least I have the decency to use my main account, and not resort to using sockpuppets.

I really couldn't care less about the F&M situation in this instance, it was just one of many caches that were disabled over a year ago, and had no logs from their owner indicating the caches were being sorted, so I flagged them up so the reviewers could cast their eye over the listings.

I am taking the opportunity to censor myself, I am sure you'll all agree that's a good thing.

However, as I am marrying into the White Rose family, I am gonna have to kick Sandvika, even if I do aggree with him - smack downh34r:!!