Thanks Thanks:  25
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 104

Thread: January 2009 New Forest FC agreement

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    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

  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

Posting Permissions

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