Thanks Thanks:  25
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 104

Thread: January 2009 New Forest FC agreement

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default January 2009 New Forest FC agreement

    We are pleased to announce that the temporary ban on placement of geocaches on New Forest Forestry Commission land will be lifted when the new agreement comes into force on 1st January 2009.

    The details of this agreement are posted in detail below, but for ease of reference the changes are listed here. All other details are unchanged from previous agreements.

    • Maximum number of geocaches increased to 150 from 100
    • When the total number of caches reaches 140 then all caches aged over 3 years are to be archived by their owners (this is an ongoing requirement giving a maximum 3 year life for all caches on the New Forest)
    • An individual cacher / team may own a maximum of 10 caches on the New Forest
    • Caches may only have one physical stage (including new multi caches)
    • Existing caches may remain under grandfather rights until they reach 3 years old AND the total of caches reaches 140



    This agreement remains in place for one year; all details and requirements will remain under review.

    The process for placement of geocachers continues unchanged for a geocache hider ie on the New Forest place your geocache in line with these requirements and the subsequent work is invisible to you. Nobby Nobbs has kindly agreed to undertake the ongoing responsibilities.

    We are grateful to the Forestry Commission, Groundspeak Reviewers and others for contributing to the process and for making this agreement possible. The agreement represents considerable behind the scenes work and ensures that we will be able to manage geocaching on the New Forest in a fair and sustainable manner. We are reliant on all New Forest cachers for support and cooperation to ensure that we can continue to go geocaching on the New Forest.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest has expired and a new agreement has been concluded allowing up to 150 caches to be placed in the forest. This new agreement comes into effect on the 1st January 2009. The agreement has taken some time to work out with the GAGB Committee working very hard with the Forestry Commission to ensure that Geocaching can continue to take place in the New Forest and that an increase in the numbers of caches has been allowed.
    To allow everyone a fair opportunity to place their caches the new guidelines have been worked out by the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers. Cache owners are asked to cooperate with the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers with the administration of these guidelines. The Groundspeak volunteer reviewers will make the final decisions on whether a cache can be published or whether a cache is to be archived after taking advice about the cache from the GAGB committee and the Forestry Commission authorities.

    THE PARTIES
    The Forestry Commission, New Forest District hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

    The Permit Holder: GAGB Committee represented by Dave Edwards hereinafter referred to as the Permit Holder.

    THE RIGHTS GRANTED
    Permission is given to the Permit Holder to use Commission land in the New Forest for Geocaching activities. The permission is subject to the following conditions:

    1.The activities and their locations will be specified by the Deputy Surveyor and will be staged within the New Forest.
    2.There will be no more than 150 caches in place in the New Forest.
    3.When 140 caches have been placed any cache which is older than 3 years will be archived.
    4.When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published.
    5.Cache owners may only own 10 caches each. To place another cache a previous one they own must first be archived.
    6.A cache can be a traditional, multi, mystery or Whereigo. If a multi, mystery or Whereigo it may have only one physical part, the final cache. Any intermediate stages must be in the form of ‘Questions to Answer’, or puzzles to solve. You cannot place intermediate cache/micro stages with clues or coordinates.
    7.Caches will be submitted in the normal way for the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers to look at. If the cache meets the guidelines (these New Forest guidelines and the normal cache placement guidelines) it will be published and the reviewer will inform the GAGB who in turn will inform the Forestry Commission of the location.
    8.All cache containers will be clearly marked ‘Geocache’, stating that the contents are harmless (no dangerous items, matches, knives, food, drink and no alcohol) with the cache owners e-mail address or other contact method. Note:These are the normal Geocaching guidelines. It is recommended an official Geocaching label is used on the cache container.
    9.The cache container is to be plastic and no larger than 3 litre capacity with a secure waterproof ‘click lock’ type lid
    10.Any cache currently in place that does not meet these guidelines will be considered ‘grandfathered in’ and remain until it meets the guideline at 3 when it too will be archived.
    11.The responsibility for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe and suitable for the activities will rest with the Geocache owners/Geocachers and they will ensure that public rights of way are not impeded.
    12.Geocache owners/Geocachers will pay compensation or make good to the Deputy Surveyor's satisfaction all damage to Commission property caused by the exercise of this permission. Geocache owners/Geocachers will clear all equipment and litter brought onto Commission land by them, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Surveyor.
    13.Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure proper consideration is given to protect safety of participants and members of the public likely to be within the vicinity of the activity, including the grazing by ponies and cattle belonging to New Forest Commoners.
    14.Geocache owners /Geocachers will advise the Commission within 24 hours of the end of an activity of any accident to a participant, spectator, or third party which arises as a result of the exercise of this permission.
    15.If the Commission's tenants and/or landlords or other persons having an interest in the land are likely to be affected by this permission, then the Permit Holder will notify the relevant Geocache Placer.
    16.The Deputy Surveyor will ensure that all relevant forest district staff are notified of the permission and the approved routes or areas to be used.
    17.Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure that no vehicles owned or used by them enter Commission land, except for parking in recognised car parks.
    18.The Permit Holder will ensure that the Forestry Commission Byelaws are observed, except as expressly authorised by this Agreement. A copy of the Byelaws will be supplied on request by the Deputy Surveyor. In particular the Permit Holder will ensure:
    there is no lighting of fires
    all gates are left in the position as found
    reasonable care is taken to prevent disturbance to wild fauna and flora and to commoning livestock
    compliance with any instructions issued by the Deputy Surveyor or his authorised representative.
    there is to be no disturbance to the general public


    19.Overnight parking in Forestry Commission car parks is against the Byelaws.
    20.The Commission reserves the right to revoke this permission at any time by notice given to the Permit Holder in writing. If the revocation is to meet Commission requirements a refund of the charge will be made unless a suitable alternative location can be provided. If the revocation is required as a result of default by the Permit Holder or any representative no refund will be made.
    21.Nothing in this permission shall be construed as creating a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
    [COLOR=black]
    22.Night caching will not be permitted.[COLOR=black]
    Last edited by Bill D (wwh); 8th January 2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason: To include an accidental omission


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  2. #2
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Any possibility there might have been of my joining the GAGB has been removed by this "agreement".

    Enforced archiving and a limit on cache ownership at the behest of GAGB? I don't think so .

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    While I appreciate your point Alan.

    What would your preference be no caches. That is what the situation was originally and it took a lot of hard work to get any agreement at all.

    That agreement ran out and people wanted more cache sin the area. We were given a limit. It is more than likely we wont reach that limit so the archiving situation may not arise. If it does then it is the only way for new caches and fresh areas to be developed. A lot of people have put a lot of time in over the last few weeks to try and get something that may work.

    Perhaps you should think about that before presenting your ill informed opinion?

    Please feel free to flame me/abuse me etc. I will not be wasting any more words on you.

    Please note this is me speaking not the GAGB committee

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Any possibility there might have been of my joining the GAGB has been removed by this "agreement".

    Enforced archiving and a limit on cache ownership at the behest of GAGB? I don't think so .
    So you would rather have no caches at all in that area then ?

    I have been negotiating with a land manager for the last 12 months about setting caches and they set out some provisions.

    1. Maximum of 5 caches on the land

    2. Only I am allowed to place the caches .

    Now I have no problem with the maximum number provision but I did not like the restriction on who could set them, however after chatting to a few locals including someone who had asked the land manager and been refused previously I decided that if it meant that caches could be set there then I needed to go ahead and hopefully at least one cache will be set in the next couple of weeks.

    So if the land owner/manager has some provisions and they are not to restrictive then I don't see a problem. We have more restrictions on the types of caches (virtuals etc) from groundspeak that are in my opinion a greater problem.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Sorry Allan but your dumping all the responsibility onto the GAGB, GC's UK Reviewers and the Landowner were involved in the dicision making proccess as well. Of course the New Forest could have stated that the Life of a cache is just One Year before having to be uplifted [this is what happens in many areas in the US, so please do not attack the GAGB for coming up with a better sollution].

    At the end of the day apart from any Navicache or Terracaching caches which get placed within the NF boundaries so coming under the agreement. It's going to be the GC Reviewers who have to enforce this agreement on behalf of both the GAGB & NF.

    Another restriction faced by US Cachers which the GAGB have in most cases* negotiated out include, the payment of a annual fee. US Cachers also face huge areas [total area is larger than the whole of the UK] which are permenantly out of bounds [that includes a area of Washington DC, where only virtuals could be placed].

    So to summerise I'd say the NF Agreement is not restrictive, and allows for a flow of New caches once the limit has been reached. The alternative being GC's UK Reviewers jumping on cache owners within the NF if their cache was inactive for more than 2/3 weeks, and Archiving after 6/8 weeks. A case of a extremly restrictive application of the Guidelines. A situation we do not wish to see happen.

    *The one exception to the requirment that the GAGB was not able to negoitiate out, was the FC North West Regions requirement for a payment of 50 for a 3 year permit. Something that to date no one has purchased one. We face a sittuation of if just one person purchaces a permit. All FC Areas and the NT will charge a fee for a permit.

    Now thats what I'd describe as realy restrictive.

    Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com
    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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Alan, we weren't at all happy about having to introduce forced archiving, but the alternative was for the New Forest to become a no-go area for new caches.

    GAGB's committee, the UK gc.com reviewers and the Forestry Commission have worked together for some considerable time to achieve this new agreement, and I at least am delighted that we've been able to come up with a way of allowing new caches to be placed in the Forest for the foreseeable future.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion , I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

    Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion , I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

    Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments.
    Comments are welcome, you have a right to make them. However others also have the right to reply and that includes me.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I dunno. I think that this is more of an 'announcement' than a discussion thread, so if people want to risk making comments it may be worth opening a new thread.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion , I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

    Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments.
    As Tony has said, comments are welcome. I don't see that Alan has been badly treated in any way. He posted his opinion, which he's absolutely entitled to do, and others including myself have disagreed with him, which we're equally entitled to do.

    If you want to give us your thoughts on the agreement then you're welcome to. I do agree, though, that this thread is really intended as an announcement, not a place for discussion, so perhaps any further discussion could take place in the New Forest Landowner Agreement thread, which isn't pinned and is intended for discussion.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  11. #11
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    As Tony has said, comments are welcome. I don't see that Alan has been badly treated in any way. He posted his opinion, which he's absolutely entitled to do, and others including myself have disagreed with him, which we're equally entitled to do.

    If you want to give us your thoughts on the agreement then you're welcome to. I do agree, though, that this thread is really intended as an announcement, not a place for discussion, so perhaps any further discussion could take place in the New Forest Landowner Agreement thread, which isn't pinned and is intended for discussion.

    I think the crucial question that many of us will be wondering about is where did the concept of a 3 year limit come from? Unless it was specifically requested by the FC it looks an awful lot like an unfortunate case of the GAGB making up rules without adequate consultation.

    I feel that Alan was treated rather badly when a member of the GAGB commitee announced that he wasn't prepared to enter into further discusion on the matter. Any committee member that isn't prepared to discuss such issues should maybe rethink their post on the committee?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I am quite happy to discuss this situation, however from experience I know that discussions with some people are not productive for either party.

  13. #13
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    I am quite happy to discuss this situation, however from experience I know that discussions with some people are not productive for either party.
    If you're not going to discuss it's not very civil to jump in and tell someone that their perfectly valid opinion is ill-informed.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    I think I'm missing something here, I thought it had been discussed already here.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion , I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

    Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments.
    Funny isn't it how what is concidered to be a constructive post by some is concidered to be a attack by others.

    Having been on the recieving end of what I and others concidered to be attacks yet others concidered to be constuctive posts, I can only apolagise to Alan if he feels my post was a Attack. I sincerly meant it to be a constuctive post!

    Deceangi
    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

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Agreed, views about how to manage the cache numbers were canvassed in that thread for example:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    I have positive indications from the FC for an increase but don't expect a huge increase and they expect us to manage the numbers in the future. They haven't actually said that they won't ever increase the numbers in the future but it's clear we won't be able to go back again in the near future.

    Consequently, I'd like to get peoples' ideas on how the numbers should be managed. For example, we are limited to the total number of physical containers, how would people feel about a rile of one container per cache? How about a limit on the lifetime of a cache? Dizzy Pair suggested a 500m proximity rule? Any other ideas?


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    As we are 'local' to the New Forest, we would like to state that we are satisfied with the recently published agreement. As has already been mentioned, the permission for 150 caches is far better than no permission or a 'monetary charge' for placing caches.
    As far as we are concerned, the committee and probably others have put a lot of time and effort into getting the number of agreed caches increased.
    There was plenty of time for people to discuss, and propose ideas yet we have seen almost nothing posted.
    But now the new agreement has been 'announced,' all and sundry see fit to moan about it!
    Last edited by DizzyPair; 2nd January 2009 at 09:45 PM. Reason: spelling

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    I think the crucial question that many of us will be wondering about is where did the concept of a 3 year limit come from? Unless it was specifically requested by the FC it looks an awful lot like an unfortunate case of the GAGB making up rules without adequate consultation.

    I feel that Alan was treated rather badly when a member of the GAGB commitee announced that he wasn't prepared to enter into further discusion on the matter. Any committee member that isn't prepared to discuss such issues should maybe rethink their post on the committee?
    As has already been said, the possibility of a limit was put up for discussion, but no-one took up that opportunity, so I don't think it's fair to use the term "without adequate consultation".

    The concept of a limit on the life of a cache is by no means a new one, and as Mancunian (Deceangi) has pointed out, in the States there are agreements which impose a one year limit. Taken in that context I think a three year limit is very reasonable.

    Regarding Tony's post, he made it quite clear that he was speaking personally, and not as a committee member.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    In an ideal world, there would be no limit to the number of caches that could be placed in the New Forest, with no time limit imposed on them should the agreed 150 be reached. Unfortunately we don't live in that place, and a number of factors (a large number) have to be taken into consideration. I can tell you that thought out this process, the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team have worked very hard to find the best possible solution for the benefit of ALL UK cachers.
    While I appreciate that the time limit (should 150 be reached) will effect a small number of cache placers, without it, you would effectively excluded other cachers from placing caches within the New Forest area.
    The time limit will also ensure that cachers new and old will be draw back to the area, which I believe acts in the best interests of geocaching in the UK.

    Alan, I'm sorry that you feel unable to join (support?) the GAGB in regards to this matter, but please be assured that we (and the GSP UK reviewers) are not trying to be restrictive, but find the best way forward for the benefit of all UK cachers.

    Edit: I know the time limit comes into forced at 140, although from reading my post this may not seem apparent.
    Last edited by jacobite; 3rd January 2009 at 07:55 PM. Reason: Clarification.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  20. #20
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    This is my first opportunity to return to this thread - indeed, this forum - since the holiday. I didn't really expect a debate: I simply wanted to state my view. I don't feel attacked at all*: the whole purpose of any forum is for everyone to express their views provided that's done in a civil way.

    I commented on the NF "agreement" in its original form some time ago. Indeed that agreement was and is the principal reason why I haven't joined GAGB. I believe that even in its original form the agreement is detrimental to cachers (item 11, among many, being a particularly foolish one for GAGB to agree to).

    My point was, and is, that it's not up to GAGB to determine when a cache should be removed or how many caches a cacher is allowed to have. Those are matters for the cache owner in conjunction with their chosen listing sites. I think it laughable that an organisation which purports to look after the interests of cachers demonstrates that by placing arbitrary limits on the activity.

    Not unreasonably, I've been asked what I would do to solve the problem. This is easy: there isn't a problem that needs solving. The original agreement specified 100 caches; that limit was reached so no more caches can be placed until one is archived naturally. This is no different from any other area: I can't place a (Groundspeak-listed) cache within 161m of another (Groundspeak-listed) cache. It's first-come, first-gets-the-hiding-place. If I can't place a cache in the first spot I find then I'll look somewhere else. There are millions of places to hide a cache. Why does the NF require a special rule?

    That takes care of the 100 "problem": now for the time limit. What that achieves is to provide new caches, close to and possibly even in the same place as the original. What's the point of that? I don't like being taken back to the same hiding place - something which seems to be becoming more and more common - but that's just a personal preference. The real problem with the time limit is that it ensures that more cachers will visit that area because they'll want to get the new cache. This isn't good for the environment. Lastly, who says that the new cache will be better than the previous one? A time limit is just a way of ensuring that what may be a perfectly good cache is removed in order to make way for another. I ask again: why does the NF require a special rule?

    I think that there is a tendency in recent times - due partly to the advent of large cache series - for a cacher to place "too many" caches. I'm sure we've all seen cachers with hundreds of caches and Needs Maintenance notes on many of them for long periods. That said, my point is that it's not for the GAGB to mandate the number of caches I may own, and still less for Groundspeak or any other listing site to enforce it unless it's part of the site's own guidelines.

    No doubt GAGB can clarify, but I doubt that NF says - or cares - that each cacher can own only ten caches. I suspect the same applies to the time limit and the stage limit. In other words, GAGB, with the participation of an American-owned company, is mandating rules that go far beyond those needed to comply with the wishes of the land manager.

    It's been suggested that the limit of 150 is unlikely to be reached so the issues I'm so concerned about won't arise. Firstly, with the growth in cache placement I think we can be very certain that the new limit will be reached very quickly. Secondly, it's not specifically the time limit or limit on ownership in this agreement that concerns me but rather the precedents that they represent.

    Which answers the question of why I didn't comment before: the discussion was about what to do with a problem which I don't believe exists in an area that doesn't interest me. So I didn't feel any need to comment. However, once published the new agreement contains things which GAGB and/or Groundspeak may choose to apply in other areas. This agreement sets bad precedents, hence why I choose to comment now.


    * Except for the continued misspelling of my name, which I now can only assume is done deliberately in order to wind me up .

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    * Except for the continued misspelling of my name, which I now can only assume is done deliberately in order to wind me up .
    Sorry but my misspelling which was pointed out to me after I had posted, comes from 2 reasons. One of which is very well known.

    I can't spell correctly to save my life

    Secondly from being a young child, I've had a friend whose name is spelt Allan, so it's just force of habit for me.

    Oh and in the case of the New Forest Agreement, the agreement is unusual in that the Placement Permission has been given specifically to the GAGB and not for Individual cachers. So as far as the NF Admin are concerned it is the GAGB who have placed the caches and are responcible for them. Not the cache owner
    1 THE PARTIES

    The Forestry Commission, New Forest District hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

    The Permit Holder: GAGB Committee represented by Dave Edwards hereinafter referred to as the Permit Holder.

    2 THE RIGHTS GRANTED

    Permission is given to the Permit Holder to use Commission land in the New Forest for Geocaching activities. The permission is subject to the following conditions:
    And can we clear up on thing Groundspeak have had nothing to do with the discusions or implimentation of the Agreement. Site Volunteers were involved in discusions, and will be responcible for actioning the agreement on behalf of the Landowner and Permit Holder (The GAGB) just like we action all other Landowner Agreements.

    Deci

    !
    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

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    I've been away without internet access since Saturday afternoon, so I have only just caught up with this thread.

    As Deci has said, Groundspeak weren't involved at all in drawing up this agreement, only the volunteer UK cache reviewers, and their input was extremely useful.

    As the GAGB committee is the Permit Holder I think we do have the right to set the conditions. Ultimately it's us whom the NF FC hold responsible for caches in the Forest.

    The limited life condition is not setting a precedent - as has been said earlier in this thread that's a common condition in landowner agreements in the US, and I think it was always inevitable that it would be used over here too.

    The reason for only allowing multis to have virtual stages except for the final container is that the FC's limit on numbers applies to containers, not to caches, and we felt that it was better to allow more actual caches than would have been possible if physical early stages of multis were permitted.

    We decided on a limit of ten caches per cacher/caching team precisely because of the fact that some cachers do place large numbers of caches, and with a limit of just 150 containers in a large area we thought it fairer to ensure that no-one "hogged" the Forest. At the moment there are only 3 cachers/caching teams with more than ten caches there - one of those is a committee member and another has said publicly that they support the new agreement.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  23. #23
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    and that particular committee member fully intends to reduce his numbers despite the fact I could sit back and leave them out there.

    Personally I'm more than happy with the agreement as it stands and knowing lots of the cachers in the area I've only had positive feedback.

  24. #24
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    the agreement is unusual in that the Placement Permission has been given specifically to the GAGB and not for Individual cachers. So as far as the NF Admin are concerned it is the GAGB who have placed the caches and are responcible for them. Not the cache owner
    I don't read that at all. The agreement frequently refers to "Geocache owners/Geocachers". Since these aren't defined then it's reasonable to apply our usual interpretations. "Geocache owners" = the person who physically placed the cache and/or whose account it's listed under; "Geocachers" = people other than "Geocache owners" who play the game of geocaching. No mention of GAGB at all.

    I don't see your quote in the agreement either, so I don't know where that came from .

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    And can we clear up on thing Groundspeak have had nothing to do with the discusions or implimentation of the Agreement. Site Volunteers were involved in discusions, and will be responcible for actioning the agreement on behalf of the Landowner and Permit Holder (The GAGB)
    I don't see that either. In fact, according to the agreement Groundspeak had and have significant involvement in it. Groundspeak, in the form of its reviewers, were involved in the discussions ("We are grateful to the Forestry Commission, Groundspeak Reviewers and others for contributing to the process and for making this agreement possible."; "the new guidelines have been worked out by the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers") and Groundspeak are responsible for "actioning the agreement".

    The agreement shouldn't even mention Groundspeak: GAGB should not favour any one listing site.

  25. #25
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    As Deci has said, Groundspeak weren't involved at all in drawing up this agreement, only the volunteer UK cache reviewers
    That made me smile . How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    As the GAGB committee is the Permit Holder I think we do have the right to set the conditions.
    I don't see where it says that GAGB committee is the Permit Holder but in any case since GAGB committee aren't the only ones who may place caches in the NF then don't you think that other cachers should have some input? Or is GAGB setting itself up as an autonomous caching organisation and all other cachers should just do as they're told?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    The limited life condition is not setting a precedent
    That's rather disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a similar situation arises that the immediate and obvious suggestion won't be to archive some existing caches?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    The reason...
    I understand all the reasoning: I don't agree with it and still less do I think that it's the remit of GAGB.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    I typed a reply to this but then thought better of it as I dont actually want to set a cache in the new forest but I do have a question .


    Would you prefer that there were no caches in the new forest ?



    Matrix who's middle name is Allan coincidentally

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    >>That made me smile . How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?

    They are volunteers who were speaking personally.

    >>I don't see where it says that GAGB committee is the Permit Holder but in any case since GAGB committee aren't the only ones who may place caches in the NF then don't you think that other cachers should have some input? Or is GAGB setting itself up as an autonomous caching organisation and all other cachers should just do as they're told?

    Mancunian (Deci) has already quoted the part of the agreement which clearly states that GAGB's committee is the Permit Holder. I see no point in quoting it again.

    Of course we're not setting ourselves up as an autonomous caching organization. We asked for input. That has already been discussed in this thread.

    >>That's rather disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a similar situation arises that the immediate and obvious suggestion won't be to archive some existing caches?

    I stated that the limited life condition does not set a precedent. As has been said above by myself and others agreements with limited life conditions have been in existence for a long time. The precedent had long since been set.

    >>I understand all the reasoning: I don't agree with it and still less do I think that it's the remit of GAGB.

    There, as on so much, we disagree, and no doubt will continue to do so.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Alan, There are many points in your previous posts that I would like to deal with, however, I believe that we would only go round in circles attempting to debate them.

    The only one I'd like to comment on is your belief that the GAGB are in some way too closely involved with one listing site (namely GSP), which I can assure you is not the case! The reason the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team work together regarding permission agreements, is to ensure a smooth transition between the conditions of the agreement and the placement/management of caches in the agreed area.
    I believe the other listing sites have been offered the opportunity to join these discussions in the past, but for a number of reason have been unable to do so. I would hope that in future, representatives from Terracaching and Navicache could be involved in these discussions, thus dispelling the myth that the GAGB favours one listing site.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    I believe the other listing sites have been offered the opportunity to join these discussions in the past, but for a number of reason have been unable to do so. I would hope that in future, representatives from Terracaching and Navicache could be involved in these discussions, thus dispelling the myth that the GAGB favours one listing site.
    Yes, that's true. Despite many attempts we've been unable to enter into any dialogue with NC or TC.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  30. #30
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    Would you prefer that there were no caches in the new forest ?
    I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF. We all know the history of caching in that area and the land manager agreed to caches on certain conditions. My point is that those conditions do not include time limits and limits on cache ownership. These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.

  31. #31
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    Mancunian (Deci) has already quoted the part of the agreement which clearly states that GAGB's committee is the Permit Holder. I see no point in quoting it again.
    Well, you're going to have to because nowhere in the OP detailing the agreement can I see a definition of "Permit Holder".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    Of course we're not setting ourselves up as an autonomous caching organization. We asked for input.
    And how many GAGB members said they'd like restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime? More importantly, how many GB cachers said so?

    In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    I stated that the limited life condition does not set a precedent. As has been said above by myself and others agreements with limited life conditions have been in existence for a long time.
    Perhaps you could point me at another such agreement in GB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    There, as on so much, we disagree, and no doubt will continue to do so.
    Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with that. But neither will I remain silent when I see problems with a hobby I enjoy, especially when those problems are caused by the very organisation which should be helping GB cachers rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions on them. There was not a problem: GAGB has made one, not just for the New Forest but for all caching in GB.

  32. #32
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    The only one I'd like to comment on is your belief that the GAGB are in some way too closely involved with one listing site (namely GSP), which I can assure you is not the case! The reason the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team work together regarding permission agreements, is to ensure a smooth transition between the conditions of the agreement and the placement/management of caches in the agreed area.
    Oh come, you must see that GAGB and Groundspeak are closely involved with each other. This agreement mentions Groundspeak several times and it even acknowledges Groundspeak's assistance in producing the agreement. If GAGB were listing site agnostic then the agreement would refer to "listing sites" not "Groundspeak".

    The only reason an agreement like this works is because Groundspeak enforces it. Without that the agreement would be worthless.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.
    Surely these are limits that the land owner/manager is comfortable with not something the GAGB has plucked out of thin air?

    Or are you suggesting that the GAGB is a dark force with power to influence the Forestry Commisions decision making polices ?

  34. #34
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    Surely these are limits that the land owner/manager is comfortable with not something the GAGB has plucked out of thin air?
    My interpretation - in this thread I have asked for but not yet received confirmation - is that with the exception of the revised 150 limit all the limits are imposed by GAGB not NF.

    I can entirely understand that NF would want to limit the total number of caches. I doubt that they care whether a single cacher owns 10 caches or the whole 150.

    Dark force? No. The power to influence? I hope so: there's not point in it otherwise.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    I've just had a chance to have a look at this matter and play "catch up" after Christmas.

    It all seems a perfectly reasonable agreement to me. I haven't seen any adverse comments from cachers from the southern region as yet, only positive ones. I don't live within the NF area but if I did I would find it very acceptable. I'm sure that any unforseen 'problems' that may arise over the coming year can be tweaked/amended as necessary when it gets reviewed again.

    Well done to all those who've been working on this for months.

    :cheers:

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    >>Well, you're going to have to because nowhere in the OP detailing the agreement can I see a definition of "Permit Holder".

    I beg your pardon, Alan, I should have checked. That was in the original agreement and successive renewals, but it seems to have slipped through in the new version and no-one noticed. It should be in there and I've proposed that it be included again.

    >>And how many GAGB members said they'd like restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime? More importantly, how many GB cachers said so?

    It was put up for discussion, as I've said before. You can't blame the committee if there turned out to be little interest amongst the membership in discussing it.

    >>In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.

    Most if not all landowner agreements have restrictions. There is rarely if ever any public discussion of them, and indeed quite a few blanket agreements are reached between the landowner and an individual cacher, and no-one else knows anything about the restrictions until the agreement is published. As I've already said, we did provide the opportunity for discussion.

    >>Perhaps you could point me at another such agreement in GB?

    Neither I nor anyone else has said that there are other such agreements in GB - I don't know whether there are or not. But what has been said is that such agreements are common in the US, and it would be naive in the extreme to believe that they wouldn't sooner or later occur here - the precedent had already been set.

    >>Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with that. But neither will I remain silent when I see problems with a hobby I enjoy, especially when those problems are caused by the very organisation which should be helping GB cachers rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions on them. There was not a problem: GAGB has made one, not just for the New Forest but for all caching in GB.

    Alan, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you remain silent. There were aspects of this agreement that I wasn't happy with myself, but I consider that the final agreement is, on balance, a good thing. You don't, and we're never going to agree on that, but I'm not asking you to remain silent about it.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  37. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Having just sat and read through the agreement I honestly feel that the GAGB has got us a fair deal and the restrictions that are being talked about seem to me to be fair. Why should a cacher complain about being restricted to a maximum of 10 caches in one area when it means that others may have the chance to hide one/some of their own. If I wanted to place a cache but was refused because another cacher had 20 - 40 caches hidden in an area where there was a ceiling limit I would not be very happy and feel that the other cacher was being somewhat selfish.
    Being a relative newcomer to caching and both the GC & GAGB forums I cannot believe how much backbiting there is when in reality the majority just want to go out and hunt boxes and enjoy ourselves.
    If the GAGB have negotiated the agreement and are listed as the Permit Holder then it is right that they should be involved in setting any sensible restrrictions.
    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 8th January 2009 at 06:53 PM.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.
    Alan, the other thread includes the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    However, the important point is that I'm not looking for negotiation ideas but rather how we will manage cache numbers within their limit in the future?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    I'm delighted to announce that the New Forest Forestry Commission have kindly agreed to increase our cache limit from 100 to 150 physical caches with effect from 1st January 2009, our agreement renewal date. I'd like to thank them for this.

    Discussion with the FC has highlighted that the caching community will need to manage numbers within this total so any other cache management ideas / discussion can be posted here.


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  39. #39
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    You can't blame the committee if there turned out to be little interest amongst the membership in discussing it.
    Of course, but I think the problem here is the way in which the issues were presented. As I said, I ignored the original thread because it was discussing an update to an agreement in an area which didn't interest me. Others may have ignored the thread for the same reason. What I didn't expect was for restrictions to be placed in the agreement which firstly aren't necessary for the functioning of the agreement and secondly were no more than ideas floated in the thread. That is, until after the agreement was published and we find that those ideas have been incorporated into the agreement without any further discussion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    Most if not all landowner agreements have restrictions.
    Certainly, but there is a difference between restrictions which are required by the land manager and those which cachers impose on themselves. I am still waiting for the confirmation that the lifetime and cache ownership limits are in the agreement because GAGB wants them not because NF wants them.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    Neither I nor anyone else has said that there are other such agreements in GB - I don't know whether there are or not.
    I'm sure we would know. An agreement isn't much use unless it's documented and published, and I don't know of anywhere else other than here where it would be.


    A precedent set in the USA isn't a precedent set in GB. A precedent set in one US state isn't relevant in another, and what happens in another country with different customs and laws is irrelevant here. The restrictions in this agreement set precedents which could significantly affect caching in GB.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    I'm not for a moment suggesting that you remain silent.
    I know, but the difficulty is where we go from here: simply agreeing to disagree doesn't resolve or even debate the underlying problems that have surfaced here. The GAGB - or more accurately a handful of cachers who happen to be GAGB members - have "agreed" to an "agreement" which is not only worthless (because it's unlikely that anyone is legally bound by it) but is also detrimental to caching because of clauses like 11 and the new lifetime and cache ownership limits.

  40. #40
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    Why should a cacher complain about being restricted to a maximum of 10 caches in one area when it means that others may have the chance to hide one/some of their own. If I wanted to place a cache but was refused because another cacher had 20 - 40 caches hidden in an area where there was a ceiling limit I would not be very happy and feel that the other cacher was being somewhat selfish.
    This is one of things I don't understand about this, so perhaps you can help me to see why it's a problem. If an area is worthy of a cache and the cache is being maintained, why does it matter who owns it? There are plenty of places to hide caches: if the chosen area is "full" then it's easy to find somewhere else, is it not?

  41. #41
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    Alan, the other thread includes the following:
    Yes, and that's all it says. It doesn't say "NF demand that each cacher owns ten caches or fewer" or "caches can live for only three years". It asks for ideas on how to manage the caches to keep them within the 150 limit. For Groundspeak-listed caches this isn't a problem (and shouldn't have been a problem under the 100 limit) as the Groundspeak reviewers have offered to keep an eye on the number. GAGB can do little about Terracaches, Navicaches, caches listed elsewhere, letterboxes, or anything similar.

    So the answer to the "how do we manage cache numbers" question is that Groundspeak do it. That's the best that can be achieved, as GAGB has no power (and no authority) and the only mechanism that GAGB has to manage the numbers relies on Groundspeak not publishing, or forcing archiving.

    But this isn't what you meant by "managing the numbers". You meant, it seems, how do we prevent one cacher from owning "too many" caches or for keeping them for "too long"? But those questions presuppose that there's a problem, and where we differ is that I don't believe that there is.

    If it's acceptable, outside NF, for a cacher to place 100 caches on a circular walk (thereby, assuming Groundspeak, preventing any other cacher from using the same circular walk) why is it not acceptable for one cacher to own 150 caches in the NF? I don't see the difference: cache placement has always been first-come, first-served and I don't see a need to change that.

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Alan from the Full version not the revised section which had originally been posted (see top of the page for the full version) The GAGB are the permit holders for permission to place Geocaches within the New Forest. Which means they manage Geocaching within the New Forest on behalf of the Landowner. As such any person placing a Geocache within the area whatever Listing Site they intend to use is subject to the Placement Agreement.

    The GAGB are the ones who are controling No's in the Agreement Area not GC Reviewers. The GC Reviewers will action GC caches covered under the agreement, just like we would all other Landowner Agreements. The Reviewers from other Listing Sites should be following exactly the same actions for any caches listed on their site. The Agreement has specific restrictions as part of the managment of Geocaching within the Area.

    If it's acceptable, outside NF, for a cacher to place 100 caches on a circular walk (thereby, assuming Groundspeak, preventing any other cacher from using the same circular walk) why is it not acceptable for one cacher to own 150 caches in the NF? I don't see the difference: cache placement has always been first-come, first-served and I don't see a need to change that.
    Sorry but thats not accurate, each cache has a 528ft/161m Proximity protection zone around it. Other cachers could come along and place 100 on either side of or between these caches.

    The New Forest is different in that not only is there proximity protection. There is also a Number restriction in a area which could easily accomindate 3 or 4 times the maximum of 150 caches. So it's not just a case of First come First served, but first come controls the whole area including parts km's away from the container. Now that is a huge proximity protection zone.

    Which is why the 3 year lifetime for a cache was brought in, to open up what is the biggest proximity protection zone, in the world for caches listed on Geocaching.com (I can't comment about Navicache & Terracaching)

    Deci
    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

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    That made me smile . How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?
    I must admit that it is only recently that I have started following this discussion and I have surprised myself at my reactions to the various arguments and counter-arguments that are being made. Various people have said things which have caused me to question my own thoughts. But that's for me to work out.

    I would just like to comment on the point about the independence of so called "UK Volunteers". As I spent several years as one of these mythical beasts (:lol I can assure everybody that they are most definitely expected to follow Groundspeak's orders and views on how the game of Geocaching should develop. They are in place to enforce Groundspeak's vision of Geocaching and as such represent Groundspeak every bit as much as if Jeremy Irish were still reviewing every cache for publication on his website.

    It was that very lack of meaningful independence that led to my leaving the post last year.

  44. #44

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    There is already the "handicap" of the coast being nearby,meaning there is only just over 180degrees of land on which to find caches.
    Can't imagine that many keen local cachers would be happy with a long term static 150 caches .
    Has anyone local yet said they would be ?

    One local cacher already relocates some of his caches after they've been out a while and gives same title with edition II etc and different G.C. number.
    If one of his caches goes missing he relaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
    Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?
    We like Greens

  45. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    One thing that should perhaps be remembered is that not all the land in the area is owned by the Forestry Commission. This agreement is purely for Forestry Commission land.

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF. We all know the history of caching in that area and the land manager agreed to caches on certain conditions. My point is that those conditions do not include time limits and limits on cache ownership. These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.
    Ok so why not join the GAGB and stand for election to the committee if you feel so strongly ?

  47. #47

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    Can't imagine that many keen local cachers would be happy with a long term static 150 caches .
    By "long term static 150 " we didn't mean "only 150 caches" ,
    we meant "150 caches that have as the same G.C. numbers in XYZ years time as now" .
    We like Greens

  48. #48
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    By "long term static 150 " we didn't mean "only 150 caches" ,
    we meant "150 caches that have as the same G.C. numbers in XYZ years time as now" .
    This is a personal preference of course, but I wouldn't mind that one bit. In fact, it's my preferred method of caching as I like to visit new places and I like to find all the caches in an area.

    But bear in mind that caches don't last for ever: they get replaced naturally. Of the 45,000 (Groundspeak-listed) caches that have ever been placed in GB around 9,000 (20%) have been archived. You can look at this two ways: either the 3-year lifetime will never be a problem because natural replacement will ensure that the area is refreshed; or the lifetime isn't necessary because the area will be refreshed naturally. Either way, it doesn't need to be in the agreement .

  49. #49
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    Ok so why not join the GAGB and stand for election to the committee if you feel so strongly ?
    Ah, the old "it's easier to change from within" gambit?

    The trouble is, to join GAGB - as with any organisation - requires that I agree with the aims, objectives and the very thinking behind the organisation. I don't have any of that with GAGB so joining would be very hypocritical and would almost certainly be seen - not entirely inaccurately - as an attempt to mould GAGB to something closer to my own thinking.

    That said, bear in mind that at the recent elections I was actually nominated for chairman. Being a non-member I had to immediately decline so we'll never know where that might have gone.

  50. #50
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    Various people have said things which have caused me to question my own thoughts. But that's for me to work out.
    And when you've done so, Peter, it would be interesting to hear what they are. The views of a long-standing, respected cacher with your experience cannot be anything but illuminating.

Posting Permissions

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