Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: GSP cache listing considerations.

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default GSP cache listing considerations.

    1. Night tacks
    2. London caches
    3. Political caches
    4. Charity caches
    5. Camping events
    6. Caches without logbooks
    7. Neglected caches
    8. Abandoned caches
    9. Power trails (definition)
    10. Churchyard / graveyard caches
    11. Railway station caches
    12. Historic caches (1st in UK etc)
    13. War memorials
    14. commercial caches
    15. event accessibility generally,
    16. landowner agreement in a time of heightened security

    This is a list of the new things to consider when listing a cache (on Groundspeak) that have been mentioned / discussed or added to in the GC forum since the begining of september.

    Ive ignored a few repeats and probably missed a few at the same time as i did not open every thread.

    I felt that listing them here would enable a none GSP discussion to take place.
    Last edited by markandlynn; 4th November 2008 at 03:20 PM. Reason: abondoned is a good word wonder what it means added SP's to list
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  2. #2
    Simply Paul Guest

    Default

    You missed commercial caches, event accessibility generally, and landowner agreement in a time of heightened security.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simply Paul View Post
    You missed commercial caches, event accessibility generally, and landowner agreement in a time of heightened security.
    Aha the man who is desperate for a lifetime ban from GC.

    Covered in 1,2,3 and 4 but focused on the OP. Its a lot for one month, id be surprised if this many new considerations have been added in a year before.

    I suspect that this is what lactodaved and dodgydorum were resisting behind the scenes.
    Last edited by markandlynn; 4th November 2008 at 03:26 PM.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    You suggest at the end of the post that we should discuss! Brave! So here's my one word (mostly) opinion on the new considerations!

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    1. Night tacks - Bad. IMHO, no different to any other cache.
    2. London caches - Bad, but can't be helped. (At least Last Delivery was resurrected!)
    3. Political caches - Good - no place for political agenda in caching.
    4. Charity caches - Bad - UK charities are generally not divisive, so no reason to restrict
    5. Camping events - Bad - see my poll thread for my opinion on the new (or stricter) interpretations
    6. Caches without logbooks - Good - although virtuals would be nice to have back, the bottom line shuld be some kind of log book.
    7. Neglected caches - Bad (Obviously)
    8. Abondoned caches - Bad, (also obviously)
    9. Power trails (definition) - I have no problem with them!
    10. Churchyard / graveyard caches - I approve of the new guideline
    11. Railway station caches - Its a shame it became necessary, but how hard is it to place it off rail property? I'm sure all the ones I've done are...
    12. Historic caches (1st in UK etc) - Should be doing everything we can to keep them, but only where the cache history is important/interesting. The location itself doesn't warrant special treatment, as a new cache can always be placed.
    13. War memorials - whats wrong with them I say?!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    I think you should add ESP and telepathy.

  6. #6
    Simply Paul Guest

    Default

    If I get a lifetime ban for asking questions, having an opinion and the will (bravery?) to express it, then I welcome one. To misquote Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that wouldn't have me as a member'

    You're right, that is quite a lot of things to consider when placing a cache. I see on the 'other place' that caches have already not been set due to all too many questions about their theme (cooling towers being demolished) - I don't suppose this has been the only case, but even if it is, it's not a happy trend.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    I think you should add ESP and telepathy.
    Lol
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    I suspect that this is what lactodavid and dodgydorum were resisting behind the scenes.
    Part of it yes. Certainly some of those issues you mention, and Paul's additions, were causing angst when Dave and I decided we'd had enough.

    From a personal POV I am in agreement with most, if not all, of what Dave Gerrie mentions. Not that it will do any good to discuss it here though. We might feel good having vented our collective spleens as it were, but it won't make a jot of difference "over there".

    The current UK review team will still have to continue doing what they're told with a lot less freedom than Dave and I had. Maybe that's why there's so much bickering/argument going on over there these days.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    Maybe that's why there's so much bickering/argument going on over there these days.
    Really? I haven't seen that

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Is "recycled caches" covered in "abandoned caches"?

    Actually, I was idly thinking about this whole area last night and I wondered whether they have the same discussions (debates/bickering/angst) in the US. I haven't tried to find out but I suspect that the reviewers there have an easier time as people are more likely to accept any decision without question, even if it appears illogical.

    Is there a "British mentality" that makes it more difficult to impose authoritarian rules and regulations on the public here? I kind of feel that there is but I might be just falling for a stereotype. Obviously, it won't apply across the board, but the generalisation may have an element of truth behind it.

    I have noticed in several cities in the USA, that everyone waits at the side of the road for the "green man" before crossing, even when there's clearly no traffic around. In the UK people just go when it's clear whatever the signal: but when I did that across the pond I was tutted at. A hint of basic cultural differences?

  11. #11
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    1. Night tacks
    Night Tacks was a Woodland Trust thing wasn't it? - not GSP per se?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Sieni View Post
    Night Tacks was a Woodland Trust thing wasn't it? - not GSP per se?
    Yup but it applies to all new UK night caches now.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Yup but it applies to all new UK night caches now.
    are you sure? I thought it only applied to caches on woodland trust land?

    Mod!

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Exclamation

    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    ..........

    Is there a "British mentality" that makes it more difficult to impose authoritarian rules and regulations on the public here? I kind of feel that there is but I might be just falling for a stereotype. Obviously, it won't apply across the board, but the generalisation may have an element of truth behind it.

    I have noticed in several cities in the USA, that everyone waits at the side of the road for the "green man" before crossing, even when there's clearly no traffic around. In the UK people just go when it's clear whatever the signal: but when I did that across the pond I was tutted at. A hint of basic cultural differences?
    Having had years of contact with many people in America and having visited many times both on business and for pleasure I think there's a lot of truth in what you say. We may speak similar languages but we are very different societies. I'm not saying one is "better" than the other, just that we are different.

    Unfortunately, IMHO, Groundspeak is becoming less tolerant of such differences as geocaching develops and grows and is seeking to create a homogeneous experience based on a single vision of what it "should" be. I suppose that whether or not you think that this is a good thing depends on how you view that vision.

  16. #16
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Hereís my views on these and similar, possibly omitted, things. Bear in mind that the debate on the other forum (which I havenít reviewed for a couple of days) was intended - at least by me - to be about the different rules imposed by GB reviewers not about Groundspeak in general. I guess itís inevitable that thereíll be some overlap across the two threads.

    Political caches
    Charity caches
    Commercial caches
    are already prohibited or severely restricted on Groundspeak. Whilst I think that Groundspeakís reaction to mention of charities and commercial organisations is often OTT, I think that in general they have the right approach and caches which are overtly political, commercial or supporting a charity should not be published. The same applies to forums. Thereís no need for me to repeat the many debates weíve had about those issues, suffice it to say that what one person thinks is a good charity someone else will take exception to. Geocaching is, to coin a phrase, supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

    Night caches
    What concerns me more than the underlying issue on this one is how it came about. As I understand it, a cacher took exception to another cacherís night caches and went around removing all the reflectors, thus destroying the cache. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of placing tacks in trees, this was appalling behaviour and I was surprised that no-one else mentioned it. Itís bad enough having caches trashed and stolen by muggles without rogue cachers themselves destroying othersí caches. There are procedures in place for dealing with any concerns that any of us have about any particular cache, and vigilantism isnít a pretty thing in any activity. Iíd like to think that the cacher responsible was suitably disciplined by Groundspeak, but somehow I doubt it.

    London caches
    Urban caches are always going to be more of a problem than rural ones, simply because there are more people around to become suspicious of what they might regard as unusual behaviour. Does that mean we should give up placing caches in such areas? I suggest it does not: we are as entitled to conduct our hobby as anyone else is, providing we do so in a reasonable way. One of the first changes I recall when what I described as this "raft of UK-specific rules" started was the requirement to inform police of caches in certain parts of central London. Well, I thought, that could be good because it means that one can be certain that thereís no problem looking for caches in that area. However, the very first time the agreement was put to the test it failed because cachers were questioned and the police involved had never heard of caching never mind the conditions of the agreement. Who is taking this up to remind the police of the agreement and ensure that it's complied with on both sides?

    Events
    There were two points here. The first was whether the organiser of a camping event could require that a cacher must camp overnight in order to log the event. Groundspeak says that there is, and can be, no requirement of any kind imposed by the event organiser. I canít say I agree with that but it is a global decision not a GB one. The only problem is that itís not publicised. A simple enhancement to the guidelines is necessary to rectify this.
    The second issue is the rule imposed by GB reviewers that there has to be a second event arranged to cater for people who cannot or will not attend the main event, based on an interpretation of the guideline that events must be "open to all". I do not know, because the guidelines do not say, what prompted this clause but I cannot conceive that it means that every cacher must be able to attend every event. As I said at the time, most events are held in pubs but most pubs exclude children. Therefore child cachers - and therefore possibly their parents - are excluded from such events. Whatís required here is for Groundspeak to clarify the intent behind "open to all" and in the meantime for GB reviewers to operate the guideline in the same way as the rest of the world.

    Neglected/abandoned caches
    Historic caches
    War memorials
    Iím not aware of any GB-specific rules on any of these. Perhaps someone could explain?

    Power trails
    Likewise, I donít know of any GB-specific rules on these. I find the guideline as a whole rather strange, and it seems to be widely ignored not just here in GB but elsewhere. It seems like this is a guideline which Groundspeak shoud review and reword to explain what the issues are. There can be little doubt that long walks with a cache every 400m are very popular.

    Churchyards
    The GB-specific element here is that explicit permission must be shown for caches in church/graveyards. In principle thereís nothing wrong with that but itís how it came about and where itís going that concerns me. Like so many of these GB-specific rules it was made in response to one - or at most a very few - complaints made by a representative of the church/graveyard. Rules made quickly in response to a particular issue are rarely good rules. And if we continue to self-prohibit certain areas then it wonít be too long before there are few areas where we can enjoy our hobby.

    Railway stations
    This is very similar to churchyards. The differences are that firstly caches on station platforms were already prohibited by the commercialism rule (because to be on a station platform you must be inside the chargeable area), and secondly I fail to see the difference between a station car park and any other car park. If caching is permitted without debate in one then it should be so permitted in the other. That said, I do agree with Dave Gerrie that there should be no reason why a Sidetracked, for example, cache cannot be located near rather than within the station. The same applies to many other caches which I would argue have been placed in such a way as to be likely to cause problems for cachers or caching. Caches close to schools, playgrounds etc are all equally likely to bring caching into disrepute.

    Continued in next post...

  17. #17
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    ...continued from previous post

    Other rules which have been imposed on GB are:

    NI not UK
    The issue of Ireland has been going on for four hundred years and itís neither likely nor necessary that geocaching will resolve it. But whether anyone likes it or not NI is currently part of the UK. I am appalled that Groundspeak - a foreign commercial company - has decided that Northern Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom. I can see the benefits to cachers of having NI caches and ROI caches under the same organisational structure for simplicity, but we cannot then retain a UK label which does not encompass caches in all of the UK. What should happen is that the present UK label on Groundspeak should be changed to Great Britain so that it correctly reflects the fact that such caches are only in England, Scotland or Wales. Aside from representing the correct political situation it will also enable cachers to find caches in the right country.

    F&M
    The imposed GB-specific rule here is that all caches within a F&M PZ are immediately disabled by a reviewer without any regard for the location of the cache. I wonít repeat the debate, but this is just one of the many examples where GB reviewers have imposed rules which are not to the benefit of GB caching or, in this case, to the benefit of GB as it is against the specific advice of the UK government.

    Dummy bolts
    Another hastily introduced, unnecessary and unpublicised GB prohibition. As itís unpublicised I should probably explain for the benefit of those who wonít know. A sneaky type of cache is one where the log (or coords of a next stage) are inside a dummy bolt placed in a suitable structure. We had one (since archived). Then it was discovered that a foolish cacher had removed a bolt from an active Armco crash barrier and replaced it with a bolt of his own. And so a ban on the use of dummy bolts was introduced, and our cache was archived because one of the then local reviewers had found our cache and so knew about the bolt (it took him a couple of visits to find it though). Our bolt was completely different in nature from the one that caused the problem but, after discussion, we all agreed that it was best for the cache to be archived (there were other problems with it anyway). I hold the same views about this issue as about many of the others on here: making a rule for one event is unwise and usually unnecessary. But if you do make a rule then it must be documented and published so that everyone knows it exists.

    Historical events aka The Sharpeville issue
    Caches which take me to historically interesting places are among my favourite types of cache. There are far too many cache pages these days which say nothing more than a bland "hereís a cache" and historical information on the cache page is very useful and usually informative. I donít know, because the reviewers wonít say, what the problem was with the Sharpville cache. I do know that we now have another imposed, GB-specific, unpublished and unexplained rule. Can I mention historical information on cache pages? If not, why not, and under what circumstances?

    Re-using caches
    This one is possibly the most unbelievable of the lot, though more because itís so laughable that it cannot possibly be true. A cache was archived by a reviewer with this log:
    "This is not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. I am therefore archiving it."
    Again, letís not repeat the debate but the result is yet another imposed, GB-specific, unpublished and unexplained rule. Itís been confirmed that we can continue to re-use containers from archived caches but clearly there are circumstances in which we canít. We donít know what those circumstances are because the reviewers wonít tell us. Quite how weíre expected to comply with a rule which we donít know about escapes me.


    I expect some of this is covered in the other place, which Iíll get to when Iíve been out to hopefully FTF a new nearby cache

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    A very interesting post by Alan, and one I'm in almost complete agreement with. (I'm in favour of requiring proof of permission for churchyard physical caches, but I think thats the only point where I differ from Alan)

    I have to say, I've been caching since 2005 and thought I was fairly well-versed on the nuances of UK caching and so on, but I had never heard anything about dummy bolts (and have also logged a few in the UK). I can't see any reason for this, and I'm glad I found out, as I've contemplated making one for our RTB series.

    I think Alan's point about Rules/Guidelines being implemented after isolated problems is a good one though!

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    An excellent effort at a summary by Alan: thanks. I agree with almost everything there.

    The firetacks issue: I missed the "vigilante" aspect of this, and perhaps others did - which is why it didn't cause a fuss. I would still like to see an opinion from the Americans on the firetack issue, as I'm convinced that it's either a worldwide problem or not a problem at all. If the latter, ideally we should be able to provide evidence to landowners to demonstrate that we know how to apply tacks to trees without endangering them. If the former, it should be made widely known.

    I <THINK> that we have the Sharpeville problem at least partially explained.

    I didn't even know about the bolt rule: can someone confirm that there really is an absolute ban on these and whether existing ones have to be archived?

    War Memorials: my take on it is that this is the same area as the Sharpeville cache problem, in that we have to be very careful not to use emotive wording in such cache descriptions (I did object to a waymarking War Memorial category recently which was in my opinion very jingoistic, but only some of the US contingent agreed). However, it seems that we need some guidelines to let us know where the line is likely to be drawn, as the revised (but rejected) version of the Sharpeville cache description appeared to be pretty harmless. TBH, as this shouldn't crop up too often it could be left to the reviewers to handle it on a case-by-case basis, but I hope that they've learnt that if it gets mentioned in the forums that they should get an explanation ready rather than making a big secret out of it.

    Events: nowadays it's inaccurate to say that "most pubs exclude children", so that's a weak example.

    Railway Stations: I seem to recall that the cache that caused the problem was hidden well away from the station itself, which led to some confusion about why the rule was limited only to caches on railway property (in other words, it wouldn't have affected the cache in question). Note that many station platforms are accessible without payment, so the commercial rules don't come into play on every occasion. Was this a total ban, or were station caches allowed with explicit permission?

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    ...continued from previous post

    Other rules which have been imposed on GB are:

    NI not UK
    F&M
    Dummy bolts
    Historical events aka The Sharpeville issue
    Re-using caches


    Ihe
    In my defence i only went back one month :lol:

    Many thanks Alan.
    I believe HH on guidelines and the USA was right, we are culturally a very different society to the USA however GSP despite being an international company are treating parts of the rest of the world as another state of the union.

    I wonder (steamtrain are you there) if these rules are as easy to apply when you dont share a common language ? we certainly know that german cachers do not follow these guidelines

    This may also explain why Australia has a very large contingent using opencaching.au rather than GSP.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    If this is too off-topic then please suggest I start another thread. But the "cultural differences" aspect is intriguing. Geocaching.com could be;
    1. A worldwide cache listing site, which happens to be run by a US-based company
    2. A US cache listing site, which also lists caches outside the USA.
    I used to think that it is no. 1, but it's starting to look like it's changed to no. 2. (see Hornet's "homogeneous" comment above which backs this up). Is this what lies behind the apparent tightening-up of cache guidelines/rules? A question for Jeremy?

    The difference is very significant. Basically, in the case of no. 1, any cache that is legal in the US can be listed. For no. 2, additionally the cache has to be culturally acceptable to US citizens. The policy seems to be that Groundspeak declare a rule, then all reviewers have to apply it even if they think it unsuitable for their particular part of the world.

    If we've really changed to no. 2, it would be better to have all UK caches on a different (new?) listing site.

  22. #22
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    My take:
    Firetacks. If I were a landowner, I'd be happy for caches on my land, but may well object to firetacks more on the grounds of littering, and the fact that the cache isn't hidden neatly away in one place. But I'm not, so that's irrelevant. Apart from that: we should respect the wishes of the landowner even if we don't agree with them or the reasoning behind them. The landowner is doing a favour by granting permission, if they want to add caveats- they can.

    Charities. Most major UK charities are not contentious, but there are plenty less major ones that are. I won't name any for fear of getting into a "there's nothing to argue about this charity" argument. A blanket ban gets rid of these arguments. It's a shame, but it's hardly a huge imposition.


    Churches. It's not like it's hard to determine where the landowner is. It's that big building with a pointy thing sticking out of it. So the only reason for not seeking permission is laziness. So why not ask for proof of permission?

    Pursuing an agenda. The only agenda that Geocaching should push is Geocaching. IMO.

    I have no views whatsoever on events.

    I wonder what percentage of UK caches are affected by these issues. Do these issues present: a point of principle only/ a rare inconvenience/ a minor irritation / a frequent annoyance/ a constant thorn in the side? The scale of the problem (if a problem it is) needs to be assessed before choosing drastic remedial action such as:
    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    it would be better to have all UK caches on a different (new?) listing site.

  23. #23
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I <THINK> that we have the Sharpeville problem at least partially explained.
    You may have; I haven't got a clue

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    War Memorials
    Likewise. I've not seen any discussion on war memorials so it's difficult for me to comment. I will say that personally I'm against glorification of war and the people who enact it but I was happy to visit Poppies on Parade - Brookwood yesterday and the cache page causes me no problem at all. Perhaps it was sanitised to protect me, but I'm quite old enough to protect myself .

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Events: nowadays it's inaccurate to say that "most pubs exclude children", so that's a weak example.
    Well. it was used - and agreed with - in previous discussions on the subject. It's true that some pubs do allow children but usually only in the restaurant or outdoor areas and often during the tourist season. Perhaps IOM is more welcoming?

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Railway Stations: I seem to recall that the cache that caused the problem was hidden well away from the station itself, which led to some confusion about why the rule was limited only to caches on railway property
    Another issue of which I've not heard the full story (which makes the general principle very well). If the problem cache wasn't at the station why indulge in self-prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Note that many station platforms are accessible without payment
    It's true that many platforms are physically accessible without crossing a ticket barrier but my understanding is that you're required to have a ticket before entering the area where the barrier would be if there were one. This is presumably the reason why ticket machines at unmanned stations are always located on the public part of the station rather than the more logical and easier to protect platform side. In other words, just because you can get there doesn't mean you may .

  24. #24
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    If we've really changed to no. 2, it would be better to have all UK caches on a different (new?) listing site.
    I don't think it's changed to no. 2; I think it's always been no. 2. It's just that it's only as the number of GB caches has grown that problems have arisen and some people think that the way to deal with problems is to legislate.

    I've always been in favour of a GB listing site, but I've also always counselled against thinking that establishing and maintaining it would be a trivial exercise.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Here's a radical suggestion:- How about empowering UK only reviewers?

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default UK Railway Property Guideline and Grandfathered Cache

    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  27. #27
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    Yes, a very appropriate reference, clearly showing the difficulties we face. Not only is that cache right outside the station building (CCTV wouldn't even be necessary) but the station is also at a major-ish airport.

    But the response to things like this isn't a blanket self-imposed ban on such caches. The SideTracked series started with this warning, which sadly seems to be no longer included on cache pages:
    if hiding one PLEASE BE SENSIBLE and remember that in this day and age, public transport is under greater scrutiny than ever before, so, although these caches should be quick and easy grabs, PLEASE donít place a Cache where it could cause alarm!!!
    In fact, that warning could be applied to almost every cache, and certainly all urban caches. I've come across many, many caches were I've thought "What a very unwise place for a cache. This is bound to cause a problem". Thankfully mostly I've been wrong but sometimes I've been right.

    What do we do about it? Cachers place caches were they've found caches. If someone finds a cache in an unwise location they're likely to place one in a similar place. We need as a community to educate and advise new cachers about the best and worst places to hide a cache. More and more rules will serve only to strangle the hobby .

  28. #28
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    What do we do about it? Cachers place caches were they've found caches. If someone finds a cache in an unwise location they're likely to place one in a similar place. We need as a community to educate and advise new cachers about the best and worst places to hide a cache. More and more rules will serve only to strangle the hobby .
    Surely rules will achieve a great deal more consistancy than a lacklustre attempts to "educate and advise".

    One minute you ask for clear guidelines, the next you want wishy washy measures like this

  29. #29
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    One minute you ask for clear guidelines
    I think you've misunderstood my request. What I want is either for all the unwritten, unpublicised GB-specific rules to be documented and published in Groundspeak's guidelines and then applied everywhere; or, better, for the ever-increasing regulation by GB reviewers to be reduced back to the current set of Groundspeak guidelines. In other words, oddly enough, exactly what Groundspeak said they wanted back in April .

    This is a hobby, a game, a bit of fun. It does not need a rulebook even of the size that we currently have.

    And I do hope you aren't suggesting that we shouldn't "educate and advise".

  30. #30
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    You do have to balance things though. Guidelines are routinely ignored by lots of people so they have to be made stronger into rules.

    We have to avoid certain locations because otherwise we will get a bad reputation for ourselves. All land in the UK is owned and we do not have right to wander onto it and do as we please like they do in America.

    If we get a bad reputation then it is easier for landowners to just say "no" when asked, it's their right to do so and is the simplest of options. The agreements that we have in place are due to the work of numerous individuals promoting and explaining the hobby, all that work could very easily be ruined by a cavalier attitude.

    And a point regarding the police in London not knowing about the agreement. How many officers do you think are on the streets? Plus specials, plus community support officers. How likely is it that they are all aware of the agreement? We have to accept that it's likely that you will encounter people from lots of aware organisations that haven't a clue about geocaching and might not have the time or inclination to be taught.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    All land in the UK is owned and we do not have right to wander onto it and do as we please like they do in America.
    It's actually the opposite: in America they have severe problems with caches on "private property", whereas in Britain you can generally wander onto land and do as you please (unless you cause damage or invade privacy).
    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    If we get a bad reputation then it is easier for landowners to just say "no" when asked, it's their right to do so and is the simplest of options. The agreements that we have in place are due to the work of numerous individuals promoting and explaining the hobby, all that work could very easily be ruined by a cavalier attitude.
    It might be their right to say no, but it shouldn't be their right to prevent reasonable leisure use of the land they manage.
    Having come from a rock climbing background, I'm familiar with many very serious land access issues. As an example, one of my local crags used to have big piles of manure dumped at the top on a regular basis by the landowner in an attempt to stop climbers!
    Actually, climbing is still discouraged there...

    But more generally: we can climb on many cliffs that used to be off-limits, we can use seacliffs in bird-nesting season, we have access to private crags where landowners were originally fearful of being sued should there be an accident (and there are a lot of those!). We can use cliffs in very environmentally sensitive areas. We can climb on MoD land. We can use cliffs directly above overhanging roads, even (Cheddar Gorge).
    Although the GAGB has had many successes, I wonder if anyone has thought of meeting the BMC with a view to learning some of their ideas and skills: they have much more experience with some very difficult landowners and might at least be willing to pass on a few tips.

  32. #32
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    We have to avoid certain locations because otherwise we will get a bad reputation for ourselves.
    You're absolutely right, and that's really what I'm saying. But I don't think that our present approach is achieving what we need.

    I think that my quote from the SideTracked series is a tenet that should be the first in any list of best and worst places to put a cache. A placer should think to themselves: would I be happy to search here, and if I were the landowner what would I think about seeing people behaving oddly here?

    That sort of thought process can't be legislated for: it has to come about by education.

    This isn't a permission issue: it applies whether or not a cache has permission and no matter what agreement is in place with the police or whomever. As you rightly say, the likelihood of everyone who needs to know actually knowing is low. I used the London agreement as an example, but there are other cases where similar agreements have been found wanting.
    Last edited by Alan White; 6th November 2008 at 08:44 AM. Reason: s/achieving what we want/achieving what we need

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Having come from a rock climbing background, I'm familiar with many very serious land access issues. As an example, one of my local crags used to have big piles of manure dumped at the top on a regular basis by the landowner in an attempt to stop climbers!
    Actually, climbing is still discouraged there...

    But more generally: we can climb on many cliffs that used to be off-limits, we can use seacliffs in bird-nesting season, we have access to private crags where landowners were originally fearful of being sued should there be an accident (and there are a lot of those!). We can use cliffs in very environmentally sensitive areas. We can climb on MoD land. We can use cliffs directly above overhanging roads, even (Cheddar Gorge).
    Although the GAGB has had many successes, I wonder if anyone has thought of meeting the BMC with a view to learning some of their ideas and skills: they have much more experience with some very difficult landowners and might at least be willing to pass on a few tips.
    To quote the BMC "climbers in the UK are in the unique postion of having one body to represent theri interests" this includes acces, conservation, politically etc.

    In my reply to sandvika's nomination i also drew this parrallel the GAGB occupy a similar position but for a less popular sport /pastime.

    It would be quite easy for a BMC memebr (like us) to plant a CITO event on a crag clean up day, some sort of official approach to the BMC with regards to CITO and crag clean ups would probably be a very good way to approach them.

    ANy way i digress from the OP. Some interesting discussion going on here

    I think new cachers should have an optional online course / test and if they pass they gat a star or simialr next to thier name.
    So if on creating thier account they were asked would you like a walkthrough or short video introduction to geo caching

    We could always go back to the old way of geo caching join a newsgroup, private websites etc like torrent sites it would be a hard one for landowners to close down,
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  34. #34
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    could we consider the approach used elsewhere then where if several people object then the cache is delisted. would that not make it possible for a small vocal minority to dictate to the rest of the community?

    who would like to be thought of as the local cache police?

    wish there was an easy solution, at least we're chatting about possible ones though.

  35. #35
    Team Sieni Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    It would be quite easy for a BMC memebr (like us) to plant a CITO event on a crag clean up day
    An event up a cliff? That's outrageous! It's not open to all! I'm going to write to my MP.

    (In case there's any doubt I'm only joshing I've no idea what you do on a crag clean up day, but I'm sure you wouldn't want cachers to go up cliffs to attend the event.)

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Sieni View Post
    An event up a cliff? That's outrageous! It's not open to all! I'm going to write to my MP.

    (In case there's any doubt I'm only joshing I've no idea what you do on a crag clean up day, but I'm sure you wouldn't want cachers to go up cliffs to attend the event.)
    Ive moved this to another topic

    its not up a cliff anyway its down a cliff

    ive always felt excluded by CITO events as we hold one daily in our daughters bedroom but never get an extra smiley for it.

    Its sad that you feel the need to add an only joshing statement sign of the times id guess :cheers:opcorn::socool:hmy::wacko:
    ::wub::coffee:
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Yup but it applies to all new UK night caches now.
    I had an 18 cache night cache circuit in mind at the beginning of the year. It got canned because of permissions issues, however I'd set some stages with many reflectors. These were a mixture of fire tacks, other retroreflectors, high visibility tape stuck onto pins and high visibility stickers made from the same tape. I was looking for the most cost-effective way of setting the caches, since fire tacks are very expensive items. Though the caches could not stand, retrieving them in the dark to test the quality of the markers and their placement intervals was revealing: there was no significant difference in the performance of any of them and all could be spaced pretty widely.

    In placing the markers my order of preference was:
    1 - stickers on metal fixtures (eg gates and gate posts)
    2 - stickers onto timber fixtures (eg fence posts)
    2 - pins into fixures (eg fence posts)
    3 - pins into dead wood (eg died off branch stumps)
    4 - pins into thick bark
    5 - pins into live wood

    Frankly, I don't think I placed more than one or two pins out of 100+ into live wood as it was just not necessary to accomplish the objective and my mind set all along had been the caching ethic of "zero impact".

    The notion that this should no longer be considered responsible adult behaviour by default and therefore require explicit consent is bizarre. For example, Lilly Hill Park in Bracknell has undergone restoration and conservation work - now all the trees have tin-plated number tags nailed into them. Surely the conservationists would not have done this if there were to be any impact on the trees?

    However, with a little creative thinking, I realise that there is actually an alternative that had not occurred to me previously - glue! A rapidly setting non-solvent glue such as Evo-Grip could render a reflective patch more tamper-resistant than pins and have no impact on live wood with even the thinnest of bark coverings. In terms of tree-friendliness and cost-per-marker, it might be the best option.

  38. #38
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    I've used 3M reflective tape (unstitched from poundland reflective cycling vests) - cut into arrows, eyes, whatever - and stuck on with no more nails tape in the past - very successfully.
    I've also used the same 3M tape with spongy double sided tape less successfully...

    I've got a new night cache planned that uses neither for the markers ..... but can't tell you what it will be using in case it gives anybody a heads-up !!
    Oh - and it won't cause any damage to trees.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    OK here is my take on this.

    Its groundspeaks site and forums and its obvious they want more control over all of it. Id guess as they are a small team dealing with 200+ countries and crown dependancies etc they want to homogenize / concatenate / bring together all the different takes to make the game the same all over the world. (this is understandable)

    Many multinational companies do this a Big Mac tastes the same everywhere a dell in the Uk is the same as a US dell apart from the power supply there are many more examples.

    Our UK reviewers and mods (the ones that are left that is) seem caught between the devil and the deep blue sea or a rock and a hard place in trying to keep UK cachers happy and GSP happy.

    So is it time to say here you go GSP its your ball you have it, you manage it, you approve the caches and if you fall foul of local prohibitions then you have to sort them out (or pay the GAGB to negotiate locally).

    This would hopefully make the majority of none forum using cacher more aware of just where and how GSP operates and hopefully change things.

    Or a server owner with great php skills will use the opencaching source code and create a UK site.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  40. #40
    Simply Paul Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    ...Or a server owner with great php skills will use the opencaching source code and create a UK site.
    Funny you should say that... I've been working on something that, while not geocaching, does 'get you out to interesting places' and addresses some of the known problems with caching (landowner permissions, damp boxes, lost trackables, etc). It's still some months away and needs much more work, but I hope to be able to launch it in the spring- all being well. I do need a web-database expert though (Paul aka lordelph, aka Mr GeoGraph hasn't come back to me yet- he might not be interested in taking on another project; especially one that needs lots of time and some investment) so if anyone with those skills is reading... The server and bandwidth side of things is already covered, at least for a UK-sized game; if it goes global -and there's no reason why it couldn't- then something bigger would be needed. Premium Membership, anyone?

  41. #41
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    who would like to be thought of as the local cache police?
    I have no problem at all being thought of as the cache police - and I'm aware that some people, for some strange reason, regard the term as derogatory.

    Every cacher is a fully signed-up member of the cache police. We are all empowered to report any problem with any cache. Indeed, for the good of the hobby we have a responsibility to make such reports.

    There are really only two ways to go: either we continue with the ever-increasing number of rules and end up with a huge rulebook which few will want to read or be able to follow; or we educate new cachers (and, in some cases, experienced cachers) about the best places to hide a cache without bringing the game into disrepute.

  42. #42
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simply Paul View Post
    Funny you should say that... I've been working on something that, while not geocaching
    I wonder why you've decided to make it "not geocaching"? Could this be the bones of a GB listing site?

  43. #43
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    OK here is my take on this.


    Many multinational companies do this a Big Mac tastes the same everywhere a dell in the Uk is the same as a US dell apart from the power supply there are many more examples.
    Aaaaaahhh - but the UK seems to be one of the few countries worldwide where MacD's don't also offer a unique regional alternative to the Big Mac.......

    Oh - and until relatively recently I don't believe it was possible to buy a Dell 'puter with a 64 bit chip anywhere outside the mainland USA......

    Not to mention the fact that KFried is available with mash and gravy in Australia and NZ

    If organisations as large as those are prepared to make regional concessions, why can't GSP???
    There are probably far more examples of "global" organisations making concessions to local customers than there are against.
    Last edited by keehotee; 6th November 2008 at 02:53 PM. Reason: needed to add more ...'s, and my line spacing was all off ;)

  44. #44
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keehotee View Post
    There are probably far more examples of "global" organisations making concessions to local customers than there are against.
    Indeed. Any global organisation which doesn't serve the needs of its customers in all its target countries is doomed to failure.

    For this to happen, though, the first requirement is competition. If Groundspeak had 45% of the market rather than 99.9% you can be sure they would not have the attitude they currently do.

  45. #45
    Simply Paul Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I wonder why you've decided to make it "not geocaching"? Could this be the bones of a GB listing site?
    Nope. Unless your found numbers went from geocaching.com to britcaching.com (a name plucked from the air) I don't think too many people would be keen. I think there are enough issues (problems, limits, whatever) with caching now that it would be better to start from basic principles for a new outdoor game, and look at what experience people hope and aim to get out of caching as well as other outdoor pursuits. As it might all be a pipe-dream I don't want to go into too many details publicly at this stage. Off topic, anyway

  46. #46
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I have no problem at all being thought of as the cache police - and I'm aware that some people, for some strange reason, regard the term as derogatory.

    Every cacher is a fully signed-up member of the cache police. We are all empowered to report any problem with any cache. Indeed, for the good of the hobby we have a responsibility to make such reports.

    There are really only two ways to go: either we continue with the ever-increasing number of rules and end up with a huge rulebook which few will want to read or be able to follow; or we educate new cachers (and, in some cases, experienced cachers) about the best places to hide a cache without bringing the game into disrepute.
    Are you seriously proposing that we should descend to the point where a load of self appointed "cache-nannies" seek to educate other cachers to their own version of what caching should be.

    Who is going to decide which version of the non-rules is correct and how will we ever achieve any consistancy?

    Do you hoinestly think that you have any right to dictate the "best places to hide a cache"!

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Yup but it applies to all new UK night caches now.
    I don't understand, (nothing new there), this statement.

    I have searched far and wide and, to date, found no distinct "night cache" category.
    There is a voluntary, (that word chosen carefully), symbol "recommended for caching at night", but I can find no official recognition/description of a "night cache".

    So what applies to what?

Posting Permissions

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