Where next for the GAGB

[Icenians]

A short thread over on the East Anglian Cachers forum had a response suggesting that someone posted a thread on what needs changing at GAGB.

So, here's a thread asking just that. What do you think GAB should be doing and what direction should they be heading in?

Oh, and let's keep it civil

Kev

[GAZ]

I am happy as it is, don't really think anything needs changing. I suppose that's due to the fact that I have just sorta "returned" to these forums and don't really see any problems...if there has been, I have missed them!

I do like the way that the GAGB has concentrated on getting permissions from landowners, which makes it easier to place caches.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

This is my personal Non Reviewer opinion.

i: Firstly the whole of the membership Membership needs to get actively involved in the Association. So that the GAGB can truly be said to be the voice of the community.
ii: The Constitution needs re-writing from the base up. The original one was fine to get GAGB of the ground, but now blocks so many needed changes. But this might never happen, because of the lack of support by the membership. From memory, the Constitution requires a minimum of 2/3 or 3/4 of the total membership to vote yes. So unless this issue is resolved many changes are moot.
iii: Given i taking place then it would be possible to engage all Listing Sites in Discussions. Especially as we will then have a fair representation of UK Terracachers on-board.
iv: Given that ii takes place whilst the Association retains the core remit of supporting Landowner Agreements. The Association expands to provide members with negotiated discounts. Possibly with one of the large national Chains retailing Outdoor equipment, maybe considering the high No's who use their equipment with Garmin.
v:The Association actively publicize it's self, this could include by Logo'd clothing and equipment [this would make the Association a commercial entity, something currently blocked by the constitution]
vi: The Committee sets up a small working party to look at how other Geocaching Associations around the world benefit their memberships. And Takes the ideas most suitable for the UK community.

The above is not all inclusive, just a starting point

Now how about now you've raised the question Kev , you detail what changes you'd like to see happen as a
Member of this Association you too need to voice you opinions on what changes are needed (see part i, and part iii)

Dave-Mancunian Pyrocacher

[amberel]

ii: The Constitution needs re-writing from the base up. The original one was fine to get GAGB of the ground, but now blocks so many needed changes. But this might never happen, because of the lack of support by the membership. From memory, the Constitution requires a minimum of 2/3 or 3/4 of the total membership to vote yes. So unless this issue is resolved many changes are moot.

Very interesting post Dave, especially this bit.

It seems to me this problem may inadvertently have been largely created by the original mechanism whereby you joined GAGB just to use the forums, and exacerbated by life membership with no subscription. I can see this might have created a lot of members who weren't really much interested in the organisation and, even worse, means that people who have left the game are still members! I don't wish to sound morbid, but I guess some "members" may not even still be alive?

So, would it be within the existing constitution for people to have to reaffirm their membership every year? And choose between full and forum only membership at the time? Would it be right to say that the constitution allows this two level membership, and requires votes only from full members?

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

Now how about now you've raised the question Kev , you detail what changes you'd like to see happen as a
Member of this Association you too need to voice you opinions on what changes are needed (see part i, and part iii)

Dave-Mancunian Pyrocacher

A fair point.

I'm not entirely sure I want any great changes in the GAGB, I don't see our hobby as something that particularly needs any great level of organisation.

One area I would like to see an improvement in, is an attempt at a greater engagement with the UK cachers from other listing sites, and I don't mean at the top site listing level as that would be pointless in TC case.

To date the only engagement with the users of these sites is the occassioal post around this time of year to let us know the elections are happening.

If I could use the New Forest as an example. It's been announced on here that there is a stop on placing caches, and on GC. There is no mention of this on the other sites. My approvers are US based and wouldn't be expected to be aware of the GAGB agreements, (please no bashing the TC system in this thread, it's what we have to work with). A post in the forums there would alert any non GAGB members that use TC, and don't look at the GC forum, of the restriction.

It would certainly help us to feel that the GAGB does actually want our membership rather than just concentrate on the main listing site.

There also has to be a realism in the approachs taken with other listing sites. GC's way isn't the only way to do things. TC has a system and that is what we have, trust me it's extremely unlikly to be changed, and the GAGB needs to work with the system in place.

Kev

[StuartP]

Very interesting post Dave, especially this bit.

It seems to me this problem may inadvertently have been largely created by the original mechanism whereby you joined GAGB just to use the forums, and exacerbated by life membership with no subscription. I can see this might have created a lot of members who weren't really much interested in the organisation and, even worse, means that people who have left the game are still members! I don't wish to sound morbid, but I guess some "members" may not even still be alive?

So, would it be within the existing constitution for people to have to reaffirm their membership every year? And choose between full and forum only membership at the time? Would it be right to say that the constitution allows this two level membership, and requires votes only from full members?

Rgds, Andy

From previous posts, and as listed on the gagb homepage

"We have separated membership of our forums from membership of GAGB. If your membership application was validated prior to 9am BST on 3rd May 2008 you are a member of both GAGB and of our forums. If your application was validated after that time, or if you apply for membership of our forums now or in the future, you are or will become a member of our
forums only, but not a member of GAGB itself"

There is work going on behind the scenes to allow us to better handle the membership of the GAGB, and indeed annual renewal of membership is something that is being looked at.

Hopefully once the new committee is in place work will be undertaken to resolve issues as raised, and to improve the GAGB and the services it offers to it's membership.

[markandlynn]

Ouch forum lost my post.

To be the representative voice for cachers in the UK


To remind listing sites, landowners and cachers that the GAGB should / must be involved in UK issues as its the representative UK voice of geo caching.

To remind those organisations, cachers that do not use the GAGB for these matters that they should of been at minimum represented / informed.

What dave said as well. :cheers:

A lot to ask a load of volunteers but the UK should be represented in UK geo caching.

And finally encourage use of these forums to discuss UK geocaching matters (cross posting links etc)

[amberel]

From previous posts, and as listed on the gagb homepage

"We have separated membership of our forums from membership of GAGB. If your membership application was validated prior to 9am BST on 3rd May 2008 you are a member of both GAGB and of our forums. If your application was validated after that time, or if you apply for membership of our forums now or in the future, you are or will become a member of our
forums only, but not a member of GAGB itself"

There is work going on behind the scenes to allow us to better handle the membership of the GAGB, and indeed annual renewal of membership is something that is being looked at.

Hi Stuart, Yes, I realised that it had changed now (hence my use of the words "the original mechanism"). I should have guessed that I wasn't the first to think of annual membership renewal .

Rgds, Andy

[keehotee]

Ouch forum lost my post.

To be the representative voice for cachers in the UK

You'd need Groundspeak / Terracaching / Navicache buy in to make this the case. How else are you going to make all UK cachers aware of GAGB or its role?

To remind listing sites, landowners and cachers that the GAGB should / must be involved in UK issues as its the representative UK voice of geo caching.

As above.

At the moment all a cacher needs to find a box is a GPS (possibly) and access to a listing site. There is no requirement for anybody caching in the UK to ever visit this forum or become a member.
Any change to that needs to have the full backing of all the listing sites - if only to let new members know that any caches they submit for publication will be reviewed with the requirements of the GAGB in mind. Being told after submission by your friendly local reviewer isn't good enough.

(ie - after putting in the effort to hide a box, you're told that, actually, there's another set of rules that you didn't know about, put together by a group of people you've never heard of)

[nobbynobbs]

Last time I tried to open negotiations with the other listings sites I got absolutely no reply despite numerous attempts.
Please let me know if you can think of how we can get them onboard.

[Icenians]

To remind listing sites, landowners and cachers that the GAGB should / must be involved in UK issues as its the representative UK voice of geo caching.

To remind those organisations, cachers that do not use the GAGB for these matters that they should of been at minimum represented / informed.

I'm not aware of any other hobby I take part in where I have or even should, be a member. I can climb and walk without being a member of the BMC. I canoe without membership to the BCU. If I wish to canoe the local waterways I can. If I wanted to shoot some rapids, difficult in Norfolk I can whether I have a BCU star or not.

I see GAGB providing that sort of level within the UK. They have members, provide sevices to their members, and even fight the fight for their hobby. They don't stop people carrying out the hobby outside of the organisation nor do they impose their rules on those not wishing to join.

At best GAGB can make itself attractive and even benificial to join.

Informed I agree with. GAGB should make people aware that the landowner agreements exist beyond one site. They should be trying to encourage people to join and promoting the guidelines etc through the membership.

If someone has an objection to the GAGB and does not wish to be a member then GAGB should not be trying to impose it's ideals on the individual via the listing sites.

We can only speak for ourselves as an organisation not others outside the organisation.

[markandlynn]

You'd need Groundspeak / Terracaching / Navicache buy in to make this the case. How else are you going to make all UK cachers aware of GAGB or its role?


As above.

At the moment all a cacher needs to find a box is a GPS (possibly) and access to a listing site. There is no requirement for anybody caching in the UK to ever visit this forum or become a member.
Any change to that needs to have the full backing of all the listing sites - if only to let new members know that any caches they submit for publication will be reviewed with the requirements of the GAGB in mind. Being told after submission by your friendly local reviewer isn't good enough.

(ie - after putting in the effort to hide a box, you're told that, actually, there's another set of rules that you didn't know about, put together by a group of people you've never heard of)

Why do we need them to buy into this ? why do UK cachers need the permision of any listing site to negotiate in the UK for UK cachers, be involved in UK based guidelines, discussions and negotiations.

There are some brilliant negotiators here, how involved were they in the london issues recently ? and if not why not ? someone on the ground and able to visit in person works wonders.

The listing sites should come here not the other way round i feel this is my representative body for caching not a listing site.

By analogy i use ebay to list items for auction cause its a good listing site, but do its rules supersede UK laws and rules re auctions ?

Using the BMC and canoeing walking analogy you have used the same stretch of water / rock / hill for years without being a member or using its facilities you turn up tommorow and the landowner has fenced it off and put a toll booth in your way, where do you go ? what do you do who goes and deals with your access issue ?

[Happy Humphrey]

A fair point.

I'm not entirely sure I want any great changes in the GAGB, I don't see our hobby as something that particularly needs any great level of organisation.

One area I would like to see an improvement in, is an attempt at a greater engagement with the UK cachers from other listing sites, and I don't mean at the top site listing level as that would be pointless in TC case.

To date the only engagement with the users of these sites is the occassioal post around this time of year to let us know the elections are happening.

If I could use the New Forest as an example. It's been announced on here that there is a stop on placing caches, and on GC. There is no mention of this on the other sites. My approvers are US based and wouldn't be expected to be aware of the GAGB agreements, (please no bashing the TC system in this thread, it's what we have to work with). A post in the forums there would alert any non GAGB members that use TC, and don't look at the GC forum, of the restriction.

It would certainly help us to feel that the GAGB does actually want our membership rather than just concentrate on the main listing site.

There also has to be a realism in the approachs taken with other listing sites. GC's way isn't the only way to do things. TC has a system and that is what we have, trust me it's extremely unlikly to be changed, and the GAGB needs to work with the system in place.

Kev

All good points. Particularly, I agree that we don't need too much organisation, due to the nature of geocaching.

However, the GAGB does have an important role in partnership with the main listing site (geocaching.com, for those who might not know), by helping with local difficulties, and providing support and advice to GB cachers.

But it should be recognised that geocaching cannot be regulated and controlled beyond a certain limit.

Again taking the New Forest/new cache ban as an example: what are the limitations of the ban? It's a GAGB and Groundspeak rule as far as I can see, so I think that it's limited to being;

• No advertising of new caches in the New Forest on this forum
• Any cache descriptions submitted to geocaching.com will not be published if the cache is within the New Forest.

If a local person chooses to go and hide a few Bison tubes in New Forest car parks and then publicises the GPS coordinates to his mates; it's still geocaching, but there's nothing any organisation can do about it. If it's listed on Navicache or Terracaching, where there presently appears to be no mechanism for "stopping" the listing, it might get spotted by a GAGB member. But I'm not clear whether the GAGB can do anything more than e-mail the cache owner and ask for the cache to be de-listed.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Any change to that needs to have the full backing of all the listing sites - if only to let new members know that any caches they submit for publication will be reviewed with the requirements of the GAGB in mind. Being told after submission by your friendly local reviewer isn't good enough.

(ie - after putting in the effort to hide a box, you're told that, actually, there's another set of rules that you didn't know about, put together by a group of people you've never heard of)

Actually your made aware of this point before submitting a cache on Geocaching.com. That's if the person even bothers to actually read the Guidelines

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a 'note to the reviewer'. A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.
If the Geocaching.com web site is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be archived or disabled and you may be contacted with any information provided by the individual or organization who contacted us.

Deci

[Dave Gerrie]

I'm not aware of any other hobby I take part in where I have or even should, be a member. I can climb and walk without being a member of the BMC. I canoe without membership to the BCU. If I wish to canoe the local waterways I can. If I wanted to shoot some rapids, difficult in Norfolk I can whether I have a BCU star or not.

I see GAGB providing that sort of level within the UK. They have members, provide sevices to their members, and even fight the fight for their hobby. They don't stop people carrying out the hobby outside of the organisation nor do they impose their rules on those not wishing to join.

At best GAGB can make itself attractive and even benificial to join.

Informed I agree with. GAGB should make people aware that the landowner agreements exist beyond one site. They should be trying to encourage people to join and promoting the guidelines etc through the membership.

If someone has an objection to the GAGB and does not wish to be a member then GAGB should not be trying to impose it's ideals on the individual via the listing sites.

We can only speak for ourselves as an organisation not others outside the organisation.

Agreed, I don't think we can require ALL uk cachers to be members of GAGB, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

However, To take your canoe analogy and stretch it a little, on many waterways in the UK (certainly the larger ones and all of BW canals) you are required to have a licence in order to use it. In the same way, if you wish to list a cache on any listing site, you are required to follow the guidelines for that site.

Ideally, I see all listing sites in the UK having some kind of placing guidelines. This isn't a dig at TC (there's another thread for sicussing TC) or NC, but I honestly wonder if absolutely any cache can be placed, subject to the individual reviewer/sponsor.

For example, in the USA, would TC allow caches near railroad tracks. In the UK, can you place a cache deep in a Dry Stone Wall. Are buried caches allowed? Can they be buried anywhere? (churchyard? minefield?! :lol: )

I imagine that this isn't the case (hopefully Kev can confirm) however I'm picturing some unwritten guidelines that the sponsors follow. If TC is intending to expand, then maybe a simple statement on the website stating that regional guidelines will be followed where they exist. GAGB can then formally prepare, after discussion with ALL listing sites, a set of appropriate guidelines which are only limiting on Health & Safety and Environmental grounds, which hopefully would be acceptable to all cachers.

To do this, communication needs to be open with the other sites. Icenians and Sandvika are an enormous help in putting across the TC point of view. How much communication is there with NC, either users or reviewers?
I confess to knowing nothing about NC!

Discuss! :lol:

[markandlynn]

Actually your made aware of this point before submitting a cache on Geocaching.com. That's if the person even bothers to actually read the Guidelines



Deci

How open would GSP be to saying.

You are planting a geocache in the UK the GSP recognised body for geocaching in the UK is the GAGB who can be found here ?

Ive just looked here and find no link

https://www.geocaching.com/links/default.aspx

Crikey todays cacher is still in the links !

[amberel]

Again taking the New Forest/new cache ban as an example: what are the limitations of the ban? It's a GAGB and Groundspeak rule as far as I can see ...

Actually, I thought it was, more than anything else, a landowner rule. Not that I see any practical way to deal with it over multiple listing sites.

Rgds, Andy

[keehotee]

Last time I tried to open negotiations with the other listings sites I got absolutely no reply despite numerous attempts.
Please let me know if you can think of how we can get them onboard.

I don't think you can Matt. That was my point.
I don't think

To remind listing sites, landowners and cachers that the GAGB should / must be involved in UK issues as its the representative UK voice of geo caching.

To remind those organisations, cachers that do not use the GAGB for these matters that they should of been at minimum represented / informed.

would be a realistic objective......

[The Hornet]

Forget Groundspeak/Terracaching/Navicache etc. for a moment. As has been said earlier the sport (?) of Geocaching is nothing
more than hunting for something that someone else has hidden. The normal way of doing so is to use a GPS to get to
coordinates thay have posted on the internet. Nothing more. Anything else is just window dressing. The different listing
sites provide all sorts of add-ons to try an enhance the experience and in doing so impose their own sorts of restrictions
on people using their sites. I think from personal experience or reading recent posts on this forum we all have a pretty
good idea what they are!

I would suggest that most landowners do not know the ins and outs of the various listing sites, so for the GAGB to provide a
best practice framework and a visible point of contact for landowners is the most valuable service they can offer.At the end
of the day, if a landowner knows that as a condition of them giving permission for a cache on their land that a cacher will
abide by the best practice agreed with the GAGB then the process of placing caches is much simplified. This is what already
happens with a number of bodies.

As has been said innumerable times, ALL land is owned by someone So their word is final in how caches can be placed. This
principle is actually well established on Groundspeak (which I know most about, having been a reviewer for several years).
It is recognised there that if for instance you place a cache on your own land you can do more or less what you like with it. Groundspeak will still list your cache on their website. This extends to normally forbidden activities such as burying a cache. So if the GAGB negotiates a deal with a landowner whereby permission is given in exchange for abiding by guidelines agreed with the GAGB then the listing site should have no alternative but to list it. What you have therefore is an ALTERNATIVE set of guidelines, not an ADDITIONAL set.

This does nothing to remove the requirement to abide by the listing site's own guidelines where no such agreement is in place and as such it mirrors the situation described above whereby anyone can go climbing, canoeing, walking etc. without being bound by an organisations rules. In such circumstances, in the absence of anything else the listing sites Guidelines (not RULES remember) come into play. The big advantage of course is that truly local guidelines can then be applied by, for instance, Groundspeak's reviewers and we are not constrained by the whims of those who do not understand local conditions.

[markandlynn]

I don't think you can Matt. That was my point.
I don't think would be a realistic objective......

Im not saying its easy, but lets use the london issue, the gagb seem to of not been involved.

making aware would involve contacting GSP to ask why they were not consulted, posting a reply on the GSP forum stating they had asked to be involved.

GSP have now been reminded that they did not involve the GAGB objective achieved.

A TC cache gets listed without landowner approval, a note is posted on the cache page, its rated needs archived, the cache owners approvers are contacted.

A thread is started in the TC forum, the wiki updated with UK landowner agreements link.

TC have now been reminded about the GAGB objective achieved.

Its a form of nagging and at some point GSP may just say lets hand this over to the GAGB and see if we can make our job easier.

TC may link UK cachers to the GAGB.

[Icenians]

Agreed, I don't think we can require ALL uk cachers to be members of GAGB, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

However, To take your canoe analogy and stretch it a little, on many waterways in the UK (certainly the larger ones and all of BW canals) you are required to have a licence in order to use it. In the same way, if you wish to list a cache on any listing site, you are required to follow the guidelines for that site.

This is true. But that licence doesn't have to be a BCU membership. You can usually buy a seperate licence for the water involved. BCU just makes it simpler by having negotiated agreements wth the waterway owners. That's the similarity I was going for with GAGB.

Ideally, I see all listing sites in the UK having some kind of placing guidelines. This isn't a dig at TC (there's another thread for sicussing TC) or NC, but I honestly wonder if absolutely any cache can be placed, subject to the individual reviewer/sponsor.

For example, in the USA, would TC allow caches near railroad tracks. In the UK, can you place a cache deep in a Dry Stone Wall. Are buried caches allowed? Can they be buried anywhere? (churchyard? minefield?! :lol: )

I imagine that this isn't the case (hopefully Kev can confirm) however I'm picturing some unwritten guidelines that the sponsors follow. If TC is intending to expand, then maybe a simple statement on the website stating that regional guidelines will be followed where they exist. GAGB can then formally prepare, after discussion with ALL listing sites, a set of appropriate guidelines which are only limiting on Health & Safety and Environmental grounds, which hopefully would be acceptable to all cachers.

Actually, and we shouldn't turn this thread into a anti TC thread, concievably somebody could place a buried cache, one slap bang inbetween the tracks, or in a dry stone wall on TC. You would have to find a sponsor willing to approve it but yes it could be done. That said, it can elsewhere as well as it would only come to light, assuming no mention was made at time of listing, once people start to find it. Then I would expect the many more right minded people to get it archived.

I think the important thing to remember here is that GAGB must work with the sites in the way the sites work. Trying to fight against that will simply lead to the site ignoring them and carrying on anyway. This is particulary true of TC as the owner seems to have disappeared.

To do this, communication needs to be open with the other sites. Icenians and Sandvika are an enormous help in putting across the TC point of view. How much communication is there with NC, either users or reviewers?
I confess to knowing nothing about NC!

Discuss! :lol:

I believe that different approaches are needed for the different sites. Navicache has a central reviewer(s) and so continued approaches to those people would probably yield results, although it would seem that this has been tried. TC is a disconnected bunch of reviewers and so needs an entirly different approach, probably through encouraging membership.

Navicache does have a UK forum but TC has no regional area at all, and the creator of the site has said that he does not intend there to ever be one. His view is that there are many local cahing forums already just like this one.

[Dave Gerrie]

I must confess to being a little concerned about this. I fully appreciate and have no issue TC's objectives to be less controlling than GSP, but I also believe that they have a responsibility to ensure that caches that are listed on the site follow and laws of the land, and do not put caching as a whole in a bad light. I don't believe any currently do, probably due to the common sense of the sponsors, but would it be too much to ask that a formal statement is in place?

This would possibly be useful for their own protection as well. Landowners may eventually start to differentiate between GSP and other sites, and may not wish caches from other sites to be placed on their land, if they don't comply with some basic guidelines.

[Icenians]

I must confess to being a little concerned about this. I fully appreciate and have no issue TC's objectives to be less controlling than GSP, but I also believe that they have a responsibility to ensure that caches that are listed on the site follow and laws of the land, and do not put caching as a whole in a bad light. I don't believe any currently do, probably due to the common sense of the sponsors, but would it be too much to ask that a formal statement is in place?

This would possibly be useful for their own protection as well. Landowners may eventually start to differentiate between GSP and other sites, and may not wish caches from other sites to be placed on their land, if they don't comply with some basic guidelines.

I doubt that anything would/could be put in place to enforce a guideline as this is a principle of the site.

The rating system is the system used to weed out the illegal or poorly placed caches. The system is designed to work on the basis that the overwhelming majority of cachers are sensible people.

[keehotee]

I was not having a dig at any reviewers - quite the opposite - but if GSP were requiring people to visit and understand local guidelines listed on sites other than their own they should make that clear, without adding to the reviewers workload.

Actually your made aware of this point before submitting a cache on Geocaching.com. That's if the person even bothers to actually read the Guidelines

Deci

What the guidelines actually say is

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations.

and then goes on with

If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a 'note to the reviewer'. A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.

which all implies that the local organisations are there to give advice and help with cache placements for "certain types of parks" and not for any other issue.

It is also in there as a guidance note - not as a guideline. It would be perfectly reasonable and possible to legitimately tick the box to say you have read and understood the guidelines without ever looked further than Groundspeak - so long as your cache isn't in a "certain type of park".

Yes - I know I'm being pedantic - I'm trying to play devils advocate........

[Happy Humphrey]

Actually, I thought it was, more than anything else, a landowner rule. Not that I see any practical way to deal with it over multiple listing sites.

It's a land manager's request, which the GAGB/Groundspeak partnership has dealt with by enforcing a rule wherever they have control. In practice, the only actions they can take are to;

1. refuse to publish any cache that takes the total number of known caches in the area over 100.
2. archive caches to bring the number back under 100 (e.g. if some new Navicache offerings spring up, or "newforestcaching.com" appears).
3. advise cachers of the current situation

[Dave Gerrie]

I doubt that anything would/could be put in place to enforce a guideline as this is a principle of the site.

The rating system is the system used to weed out the illegal or poorly placed caches. The system is designed to work on the basis that the overwhelming majority of cachers are sensible people.

OK, and i don't mean to take this OT, but I believe it ties in with my opinion of the role of GAGB, how about the following hypothetical situation...

cache is buried between the tracks on a railway. the cache is allowed as there are no guidelines to enforce whatsoever. It may not be possible to tell from the cache page where precisely the cache is, so off goes the FTFer. In the process of poking around looking for the hide, *splat*... Enquiries proceed as to what someone was doing messing about on a railway line, and the authoratays (said in silly voice!) find out about TC and everything gets very messy (and not just the FTFer!).

A rating system that works after the event wouldn't prevent this happening. Of course, I appreciate this is an extreme example, but it makes the point!

And before anyone says it, I'm workign throughout that any guidelines on any site are adhered to. If people want to ignore them and willfully and negligently place a dangerous or unacceptable cache, then a) the listing site is legally protected and b) the placer can take what's coming to them!

[Dave Gerrie]

It's a land manager's request, which the GAGB/Groundspeak partnership has dealt with by enforcing a rule wherever they have control. In practice, the only actions they can take are to;

1. refuse to publish any cache that takes the total number of known caches in the area over 100.
2. archive caches to bring the number back under 100 (e.g. if some new Navicache offerings spring up, or "newforestcaching.com" appears).
3. advise cachers of the current situation

There is a 4th option... If GAGB is the officially recognised body by a landowner, then any cache that appears in contravention of a GAGB guideline (eg max 100 in New Forest) can be legally removed by the landowner or any representative of the landowner. Then it becomes a simple case of monitoring the other sites.

Obviously a last resort, but perfectly do-able. Notice of intended removal could be given as a note on the 'offending' cache page, and this may even encourage other listing sites to work with GAGB.

No flames please - just throwing ideas into the air!

[Icenians]

OK, and i don't mean to take this OT, but I believe it ties in with my opinion of the role of GAGB, how about the following hypothetical situation...

cache is buried between the tracks on a railway. the cache is allowed as there are no guidelines to enforce whatsoever. It may not be possible to tell from the cache page where precisely the cache is, so off goes the FTFer. In the process of poking around looking for the hide, *splat*... Enquiries proceed as to what someone was doing messing about on a railway line, and the authoratays (said in silly voice!) find out about TC and everything gets very messy (and not just the FTFer!).

A rating system that works after the event wouldn't prevent this happening. Of course, I appreciate this is an extreme example, but it makes the point!

And before anyone says it, I'm workign throughout that any guidelines on any site are adhered to. If people want to ignore them and willfully and negligently place a dangerous or unacceptable cache, then a) the listing site is legally protected and b) the placer can take what's coming to them!

I appreciate where you are coming from with this and understand that it's a possiblility, albeit a remote one. With luck any idiot setting a cache in such a way would subject themselves to darwinism before they got it posted.

That said, we can only control members of our own organisation rather than trying to impose our collective ideals on a group of people who do not wish it.

A site such as TC has a deliberate policy of no written guidelines. It's there for a reason and to start placing guidelines, even the really obvious like don't place caches in tracks, leads the listing site to a point of 'where do we draw the line'. Whether GAGB succeed or fail in interacting with TC won't change the fact that TC is there and the caches are out there.

We at GAGB need to accept that the game is played differently by different sites who have different standards. We just need to work within them.

My main arguement is whatever the site we, GAGB, should be either working with them in the best way possible for the given site or give up on them and simply outlaw the site!

I can only speak as a TC cacher and supporter of the site. I can't correct any short comings it, or any other site, may be percieved to have.

Kev

[Bear and Ragged]

There is a 4th option... If GAGB is the officially recognised body by a landowner, then any cache that appears in contravention of a GAGB guideline (eg max 100 in New Forest) can be legally removed by the landowner or any representative of the landowner. Then it becomes a simple case of monitoring the other sites.

Obviously a last resort, but perfectly do-able. Notice of intended removal could be given as a note on the 'offending' cache page, and this may even encourage other listing sites to work with GAGB.

No flames please - just throwing ideas into the air!

[Dave Gerrie]

I appreciate where you are coming from with this and understand that it's a possiblility, albeit a remote one. With luck any idiot setting a cache in such a way would subject themselves to darwinism before they got it posted.
Kev

Oh I'm a HUGE fan of darwinism!

I can only speak as a TC cacher and supporter of the site. I can't correct any short comings it, or any other site, may be percieved to have.

Kev

Understood! I for one say thanks for your input on life on the dark side :lol:

[Bill D (wwh)]

There are a lot of interesting and useful ideas here, and this thread will give the new committee much to discuss. Keep your ideas coming, folks!

I'd just like to correct one point. Changing the constitution doesn't require a two thirds majority of the membership, only a two thirds majority of those who vote.

Membership of GAGB does lapse, after either 6 months or a year, I forget which, but can be renewed here.

Edit to add: I should have said that membership only lapses if the member isn't active by way of logging in to the forums for that period.

[Happy Humphrey]

There is a 4th option... If GAGB is the officially recognised body by a landowner, then any cache that appears in contravention of a GAGB guideline (eg max 100 in New Forest) can be legally removed by the landowner or any representative of the landowner. Then it becomes a simple case of monitoring the other sites.

Obviously a last resort, but perfectly do-able. Notice of intended removal could be given as a note on the 'offending' cache page, and this may even encourage other listing sites to work with GAGB.

No flames please - just throwing ideas into the air!

No flames: but by "they" I meant the GAGB/Groundspeak partnership. The land manager may or may not be aware of a new cache in the area, and if they are aware, may or may not go out and remove it (I don't know whether that would be legal, anyway).
Perhaps he'll contact the GAGB after getting rid of the cache, and the GAGB will then get any web page updated or owner contacted to prevent people seeking the cache. But all that is not action by the GAGB, just reaction.

[sandvika]

OK, and i don't mean to take this OT, but I believe it ties in with my opinion of the role of GAGB, how about the following hypothetical situation...

cache is buried between the tracks on a railway. the cache is allowed as there are no guidelines to enforce whatsoever. It may not be possible to tell from the cache page where precisely the cache is, so off goes the FTFer. In the process of poking around looking for the hide, *splat*... Enquiries proceed as to what someone was doing messing about on a railway line, and the authoratays (said in silly voice!) find out about TC and everything gets very messy (and not just the FTFer!).

A rating system that works after the event wouldn't prevent this happening. Of course, I appreciate this is an extreme example, but it makes the point!

And before anyone says it, I'm workign throughout that any guidelines on any site are adhered to. If people want to ignore them and willfully and negligently place a dangerous or unacceptable cache, then a) the listing site is legally protected and b) the placer can take what's coming to them!

I think I detect an element of convergence here, I could have just as appropriately posted my last reply to the "other listing sites" thread here. It can be a two-way street, and I hope it will be.

Speaking from my own experience including having been part of the large gathering in Harrogate, there is no doubt in my mind that the average age of cachers is higher than we might like to admit and "responsible adult" tends to describe cachers pretty accurately most of the time. I think GAGB's role should aim to be as informative as possible and as high profile as possible to gain attention from UK cachers, attract and retain their interest, act as an interface to third parties to represent caching in the best possible manner to promote our hobby as a laudible persuit. If cachers are perceived by others generally to be "informed responsible adults" then specifics like approaches of individual listing sites shouldn't be relevant.

So, if perchance, a cache should appear on a railway track, it would be recognised as an anomaly and dealt with swiftly, without any reputational damage being attributed to our persuit.

I think there is a long way to go, not least because a significant proportion of UK cachers are oblivious to GAGB's existence, or don't perceive there to be sufficient value worthy of their attention, or membership. Similarly, the Met Police took their issue to GSP, not to GAGB.

Therein lies the challenge

[Happy Humphrey]

...
I think there is a long way to go, not least because a significant proportion of UK cachers are oblivious to GAGB's existence, or don't perceive there to be sufficient value worthy of their attention, or membership. Similarly, the Met Police took their issue to GSP, not to GAGB.
...

An important example. Perhaps GSP should be persuaded to refer any further approaches to them from third parties, to GAGB instead (or perhaps they do?). GC.COM should be careful to appear as a listing site, not the official representative of geocaching.

I suspect that, had the Met been aware of the other listing sites then they'd have been keen to contact GAGB anyway.

[markandlynn]

An important example. Perhaps GSP should be persuaded to refer any further approaches to them from third parties, to GAGB instead (or perhaps they do?). GC.COM should be careful to appear as a listing site, not the official representative of geocaching.

I suspect that, had the Met been aware of the other listing sites then they'd have been keen to contact GAGB anyway.

That is exactly the point ive been trying to make. :socool:

[Icenians]

By getting the membership up and encouraging cache setters, whatever the site, to put the GAGB contact details in the cache rather than the listing site may help direct the authorities to GAGB.

[sandvika]

How open would GSP be to saying.

You are planting a geocache in the UK the GSP recognised body for geocaching in the UK is the GAGB who can be found here ?

Ive just looked here and find no link

https://www.geocaching.com/links/default.aspx

Crikey todays cacher is still in the links !

Todays Cacher - events a mere 20 months behind the times. :lol:

Brand new and shiny, UK now appears in the Local Organisations and Europe categories.

As a newbie to this particular Wiki flavour it took me a little while to figure out how to add a new page and get it added to the relevant categories!

https://www.terracaching.com/tcki/in...United_Kingdom

At the moment it only contains gagb.org.uk and terracaching.eu so is exceedingly bare however TC members please feel free to edit it and add your local forums too if you wish.

GAGB Wiki, anyone? :wub: