January 2009 New Forest FC agreement

[Alan White]

(see top of the page for the full version) The GAGB are the permit holders for permission to place Geocaches within the New Forest.

Yes, the OP has been changed today to add that in so it does make more sense now. However - and this is really going over old ground as I made this point when the original agreement was published - the permission is for the permit holder to place caches. In other words, only GAGB committee can place caches in NF.

Which means they manage Geocaching within the New Forest on behalf of the Landowner.

No, it does not mean that at all. NF may think that that's what the agreement means but GAGB aren't in a position to manage caching for anyone except themselves and, possibly, for their members.

As such any person placing a Geocache within the area whatever Listing Site they intend to use is subject to the Placement Agreement.

Sorry, wrong again. The parties to an agreement cannot join other parties to that agreement without the third party's knowledge and consent. If a Terracacher wants to place a cache in NF the only thing that will stop him is his Terracaching sponsors. If I want to place a cache in NF and list it on my own site nothing in this agreement can stop me doing it.

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.

You know exactly what I was saying: why try to derail the debate? Most such rings are designed with the caches so close together that it's impossible (assuming Groundspeak) to put other caches inbetween them. The point is that the NF does not need to be, and should not be, any different from any other area in how many caches a person can own or how long a cache should last.

[Matrix]

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.

So what are you going to do ? Because we are just going around and around achieving nothing and its not a gambit its a proven way to change things.

There is a saying that comes to mind right now ...

Put up or shut up

Apologies in advance for any offence it is not my intention to offend.

[DrDick&Vick]

Totally agree with Matrix's last staement, I have left other forums because there are members who just want to moan about everything and anything.
Me I enjoy caching and will abide by whatever rules there are that will allow me to continue to enjoy my Hobby/Game/Passtime.
I shall continue to look in now and then but for now
DrDick&Vick have left the building(Forum)

[nobbynobbs]

Sorry, wrong again. The parties to an agreement cannot join other parties to that agreement without the third party's knowledge and consent. If a Terracacher wants to place a cache in NF the only thing that will stop him is his Terracaching sponsors. If I want to place a cache in NF and list it on my own site nothing in this agreement can stop me doing it.

.

except for the minor point that placed without permission it actually technically becomes litter effectively.

This is a merry little argument from yourself Alan, you profess to not care about caching in the area, you refuse to stand to see whether anyone would agree to your way of thinking, you say that you can't see the need to have these restricitons.

Like I've said the feedback I've had from cachers in the area who place and find geocaches in the New Forest has all been positive. Doesn't that mean we are doing exactly what we set out to do? Representing the geocachers of the area?

[t.a.folk]

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 replaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?

Anyone know if both examples would still be allowed ?

[Alan White]

Apologies in advance for any offence it is not my intention to offend.

I don't take offence at much (just the misspelling of my name ). I do take your thoughts on board but my views and the present aims and output of GAGB are so far apart that I just don't see my being a member or even on the committee as a means of bringing them together.

[Alan White]

Me I enjoy caching and will abide by whatever rules there are that will allow me to continue to enjoy my Hobby/Game/Passtime.

OK, here's a rule: you aren't allowed to place more than twenty caches unless you first archive some. Here's another: you have to archive any cache you own which is more than a year old. Oh, and you can't find more than one cache a day because you might then catch up on your friend Fred and he asked me to place these restrictions on you.

Still think it's a good idea to set arbitrary rules?

Ah, you think I'm not qualified or authorised to make rules like that? You're right. Neither is GAGB.

[Alan White]

except for the minor point that placed without permission it actually technically becomes litter effectively.

Oh, indeed. I've always been in the "caching is littering" camp. I recall we had a discussion on that a little while back. Not all cachers agreed, but from a legal standpoint I have no doubt that you're correct. It won't stop me caching, though .

This is a merry little argument from yourself

Yes, I 'm afraid that the very serious points I'm making about this agreement are being lost or ignored in the euphoria resulting from the fact that we can now place fifty more caches in the New Forest.

you profess to not care about caching in the area

To be fair, what I said was: "I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF". Equally, I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be a cache at the bottom of my road. If someone places one there, I'll look for it. But I won't lose any sleep if there isn't one. There are plenty of places without caches.

This isn't the same as not caring. I care about caching which is why I'm presenting (badly, it would seem) the problems with this agreement. If I found myself in the NF then I would be unwilling to look for a cache there because of conditions 11, 12 & 17, to mention just a few (nor should any other cacher without first talking to a good solicitor). So the agreement is preventing caching in NF, which is an interesting paradox.

[The Wombles]

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 ?

Assuming everything else is OK (eg 0.1 miles), yes.

[t.a.folk]

Oh, indeed. I've always been in the "caching is littering" camp. I recall we had a discussion on that a little while back. Not all cachers agreed, but from a legal standpoint I have no doubt that you're correct. It won't stop me caching, though .

Yes, I 'm afraid that the very serious points I'm making about this agreement are being lost or ignored in the euphoria resulting from the fact that we can now place fifty more caches in the New Forest.

To be fair, what I said was: "I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF". Equally, I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be a cache at the bottom of my road. If someone places one there, I'll look for it. But I won't lose any sleep if there isn't one. There are plenty of places without caches.

This isn't the same as not caring. I care about caching which is why I'm presenting (badly, it would seem) the problems with this agreement. If I found myself in the NF then I would be unwilling to look for a cache there because of conditions 11, 12 & 17, to mention just a few (nor should any other cacher without first talking to a good solicitor). So the agreement is preventing caching in NF, which is an interesting paradox.

If you don't wish to comply with number 17 you might not want to visit the N.F. in any guise .

Quote from one of the Verderers webs sites will explain one reason why parking on grass verges is frowned upon .

Under the heading of
"How can I help to reduce animal accidents".


relevant bit concerning parking is
"use official car parks (do not park on verges - this can limit drivers' view of animals); "

Only makes sense when knowing that ponies ,cattle and deer roam free in the forest ,and frequently browse the unfenced grass verges and can unexpectedly step into the road where they have right of way over cars .

Parking across a gateway is also not a good alternative to recognised parking areas .

Cars blocking gates can ,and has , blocked access for emergency vehicals .
There was an ironic case reported of a female walker breaking her ankle while in an Inclosure near Dibden.
She was on a track that was negotiable for an ambulance ,but it couldn't reach her 'til someone had walked to her first to get her car keys , then walked back to move her own car that was blocking the access gate .

[t.a.folk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by t.a.folk
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 ?

Assuming everything else is OK (eg 0.1 miles), yes.
__________________
Dave


:socool:

[DrDick&Vick]

OK, here's a rule: you aren't allowed to place more than twenty caches unless you first archive some. Here's another: you have to archive any cache you own which is more than a year old. Oh, and you can't find more than one cache a day because you might then catch up on your friend Fred and he asked me to place these restrictions on you.

Still think it's a good idea to set arbitrary rules?

Ah, you think I'm not qualified or authorised to make rules like that? You're right. Neither is GAGB.

I thought I would see what reply you would post and I am happy to say that you have not let me down, exactly as expected.

[Alan White]

If you don't wish to comply with number 17 you might not want to visit the N.F. in any guise

I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that [1].

For completeness, the problem with 11 is that it is not "The responsibility [of Geocache owners/Geocachers] for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe" but rather that of the landowner. I find it very concerning that GAGB has allowed the inclusion in this agreement of a clause which attempts to make GAGB - and even individual cachers - liable for things which are not their responsibility. What does GAGB's solicitor have to say about it?

Likewise, 12 follows on by attempting to make cachers pay compensation. For what and how any damage would be proven to be as a result of caching isn't quite clear, but the fact that the clause is there at all is very worrying.


* At least, I assume this is the case as I actually have no knowledge about the area under discussion because the agreement doesn't define "New Forest". I presume that there's a polygon of coordinates defining this area otherwise no-one could ever know whether their cache is or isn't covered by the agreement. It would be a good idea to publish that polygon, perhaps as an appendix to the agreement.

[1] Edited to add that whatever this condition means it surely applies to all users of the NF and therefore doesn't need to be in a specific agreement about caching.

[dodgydaved]

I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that.

For completeness, the problem with 11 is that it is not "The responsibility [of Geocache owners/Geocachers] for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe" but rather that of the landowner. I find it very concerning that GAGB has allowed the inclusion in this agreement of a clause which attempts to make GAGB - and even individual cachers - liable for things which are not their responsibility. What does GAGB's solicitor have to say about it?

Likewise, 12 follows on by attempting to make cachers pay compensation. For what and how any damage would be proven to be as a result of caching isn't quite clear, but the fact that the clause is there at all is very worrying.


* At least, I assume this is the case as I actually have no knowledge about the area under discussion because the agreement doesn't define "New Forest". I presume that there's a polygon of coordinates defining this area otherwise no-one could ever know whether their cache is or isn't covered by the agreement. It would be a good idea to publish that polygon, perhaps as an appendix to the agreement.

Surely any of these arguments, in any form, are spurious.

This is merely a permission issue.

Some years ago the New Forest commisioners (NFC) (or whatever title they have) found geocaches on their property - that is to say the land they own or manage.

They removed them.

After a lot of difficult negotiation - carried out by the people that were willing to do it - the NFC agreed that cachers could place caches on their land as long as certain conditions were adhered to. The simplest way to ensure that the conditions they placed on caches on THEIR land was to ask an agent to check all new caches that were placed and if they did not comply with the NFC conditions the cache was deemed to have been placed without permission and this fact reported to the UK reviewer for the area who would check the facts and alert the cache owner to them, temporarily disabling the cache until the permission issues were resolved, or if absolutley necessary archiving them

The land owners/managers have now reassessed their permission conditions.

In order to place a cache with the permission of the land owner/manager (an absolutely, supposedly, cast iron issue for cache placement as far as GSP are concerned) the land owners' conditions have to be observed.

There is no valid argument against this - and I know from experience that you, Alan, are very keen that all GSP guidelines - especially where permission issues are concerned - are followed.

No matter how you feel about the conditions for permission, without them there would be no GSP geocaches on NFC land.

[Happy Humphrey]

As we seem to have entered into a debate, I will side with Alan in general. Even though we wouldn't agree on all points, I'm alarmed at many of the assumptions inferred by the agreement.

As for my earlier post which anticipated a roasting for anyone who dared to comment in a critical fashion, I appreciate that it has remained mostly civil. I also wouldn't presume to leap to Alan's defence, as he probably wouldn't want me to anyway and he appears happy enough to defend his corner whether with support or not.

However, I do get the impression that criticising the rules is regarded as merely moaning. TBH, that's why I didn't join in.

Personally, I would expect such a radical and unusual agreement to be well and truly debated; and all points which cause a raising of eyebrows in any quarter to be fully explained and justified. Alan has kindly put the effort in to read this carefully and highlight several debatable points, thus bringing out explanations and amendments to add value to the discussion. I thank him for for some good probing questions.

[Alan White]

Surely any of these arguments, in any form, are spurious.

You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.

No matter how you feel about the conditions for permission, without them there would be no GSP geocaches on NFC land.

I don't see why that's regarded as a negative. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away. If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

[Alan White]

[Alan] appears happy enough to defend his corner whether with support or not.

Oh indeed, but I don't see it as defending my corner but rather trying to highlight things which I see as detrimental to caching in general. Sadly, it seems that most people are so pleased at being able to place fifty more caches in the NF that they're prepared to overlook the draconian conditions that are attached.

I'm sorry to say that I don't see that view changing, until perhaps the NF restrictions are tested by NF making an example of a cacher (the Beds Clangers incident springs to mind) and/or the GAGB restrictions are rolled out elsewhere. Only then might there be some resistance such as mine as the effect would be on a larger group. I'll reserve the "told you so" until then .

[dodgydaved]

You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.

....but they wouldn't, as I wouldn't place a cache in the NF in breach of the agreement as it would negate the conditions of permission.

If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

Why? If there are cachers prepared to agree with the conditions they have permission to place a cache.

Now, if you had said,

"If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's my right not to place a cache there."

....I would wholeheartedly agree with you.hmy:

[Alan White]

....but they wouldn't, as I wouldn't place a cache in the NF in breach of the agreement as it would negate the conditions of permission.

Ah, another example of where either I'm not making myself clear or others are reading the agreement differently.

The agreement does not cover just cache owners: it also covers cache seekers. For example, the agreement specifically, in the para 11 I've so often condemned, makes "Geocache owners/Geocachers" responsible "for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe". So the NF could try to sue you for what they might see as an infringement of that condition. Whether they'd succeed is a moot point but, as with the Beds Clangers incident, it doesn't really matter how far it gets, it's the fact of it that causes the problem.

In short, and contrary to what many people including yourself are seeing, this is not an agreement about the conditions for placing a cache in NF: it's an agreement about all caching activity in NF. And one which has potentially far-reaching consequences for all caching in GB, which brings us to your next point.

Why? If there are cachers prepared to agree with the conditions they have permission to place a cache.

Because of the precedents. Not because of the NF's conditions but because of GAGB's conditions. The GAGB simply does not have any right to tell every cacher in GB how many caches he can own or how long the cache can live. This needs to be made clear now, when it first arises, to ensure that GAGB don't try the same thing elsewhere.

[nobbynobbs]

To answer one easy question in amongst all of this...

the area in question is clearly shown on any Os map 1:25000 or 1:50000 as the area marked as The New Forest, with a nice colour outline around it all.

[Alan White]

To answer one easy question in amongst all of this...

the area in question is clearly shown on any Os map 1:25000 or 1:50000 as the area marked as The New Forest, with a nice colour outline around it all.

Sorry, not so. The 1:25k I'm looking at has no border, just a large green area with "New Forest" and "New Forest National Park" in random places. The 1:50k has a yellow border with a large "New Forest" in the centre of it and a couple of "New Forest District" elsewhere.

And neither of those is suitable for determining if a cache is or isn't within the area of the agreement, firstly because the accuracy of even a 1:25k map isn't equivalent to the accuracy of a GPS receiver and secondly because, as mongoose39uk said: "not all the land in the area is owned by the Forestry Commission. This agreement is purely for Forestry Commission land."

So I repeat the question: where, in a form and accuracy useful for caching, is there a definition of the area covered by this agreement?

[t.a.folk]

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.

As on the map shown on address below .
And it shows car parks and toilets .


www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/map-new-forest.pdf/$FILE/map-new-forest.pdf


or google
"map of forestry commission managed land in new forest"

[DrDick&Vick]

For 25 years I worked with people I described as AAS's (antagonistic attention seekers) and when I retired I thought I would be free from them, how wrong could I have been. This thread will run and run for ever or until one person gets his own way and the agreement is torn up or rewritten in terms that only he approves. Or even easier, if you don't agree with the terms of the agreement that has been agreed between the NF FC and the GAGB then (a) Don't go there to find any caches and (b) don't hide any there. Problem solved as the agreement will not affect you in any way. But then again that may be to easy.
I shall now retire from forum life and just enjoy my caching.

[t.a.folk]

I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that [1].

It doesn't "try to ,change that" .
The rules about where you can drive in the N.F.are the same for muggles as they are for cachers .
i.e. Public roads and recognised parking areas ,
be they F.C.parking areas ,usually found along the unfenced roads ,
or H.C.C. laybys along the "fenced in " roads. eg. A31 & A35 and the fenced in road from Cadnam to Lyndurst and down to Brockenhurst .

Don't recall if you have ever been to the New Forest ,
but barrier forming ditches & banks ,short posts, gates ,(5bar and single) and "car free area "signs mean you would have to be pretty determined to find yourself accidently driving on unallowed a F.C.land.

[martybartfast]

So I repeat the question: where, in a form and accuracy useful for caching, is there a definition of the area covered by this agreement?

The boundary of the New Forest National Park is defined on various maps, if you really need to know you can look it up. But surely the important bit is that when a cache placer excercises due dilligence and applies to the landowner of their chosen location for permission, and that landowner says "We're the Forestry Comission, and we don't negotiate with individuals for caches in the New Forest, please go to the GAGB with whom we have an agreement" then that cache placer knows they're covered by the agreement. As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.

[Happy Humphrey]

...As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.

Strictly speaking, not true. A cache seeker should be aware of the extra liabilities involved on land covered by the agreement, above and beyond the bylaws. For example;

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.

...and...

17.Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure that no vehicles owned or used by them enter Commission land, except for parking in recognised car parks.

...
·compliance with any instructions issued by the Deputy Surveyor or his authorised representative.
·there is to be no disturbance to the general public

As we know, caching is basically the same as going for a walk. After all, you may stop and collect blackberries or leave the path to get a better view when you're just out for a stroll. Except for rare cases, that's pretty similar to seeking a countryside cache.
Unless someone can show otherwise, I don't think that people going for a stroll in the New Forest are subject to the same extra liabilities (beyond the bylaws) as specified above. So the cache seeker needs to be aware that they have additional responsibilities when within the area covered by the agreement.

In practice, I can't see that any of the restrictions quoted above actually apply. For instance, why would the "general public" be "disturbed" by a couple of people walking along a footpath holding a GPSr rather than a mobile phone? Even if it was a group picnicking against a cache, they're
unlikely to be distressed by the sight of a couple of cachers moving a few sticks nearby.
And what "equipment" would need to be cleared to "the satisfaction of the Deputy Surveyor" when you're out on such a cache hunt? How would the DS know that you'd cleared it anyway? But it must be a serious and relevant problem or else it wouldn't be specifically mentioned in the agreement.

[Matrix]

You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.

I don't see why that's regarded as a negative. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away. If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

It was at this point I realised the futility of continuing this discussion :wacko:

[Happy Humphrey]

I think Alan's right. It would have been better to start again with new negotiations even if all Groundspeak cache descriptions for the area are disabled. It looks to me as if the FC have misunderstood the whole concept of geocaching and are trying to treat a cache hunt the same as an orienteering event or a mountain bike race.

IMO, caching is no different from going for a walk, and AFAIK these restrictions only apply once you're on an "official geocache hunt" (whatever that might be). Should you declare that you're just on a walk, you're only bound by the normal laws and bylaws.

Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach. I urge the GAGB to push for the same rights and responsibilities for cache seekers as for other members of the public, not to treat them as some sort of sports event organisers.

As an aside, it's interesting that Groundspeak seems to be regarded as the official geocaching body here, whereas the other listing sites don't get involved. Perhaps in the case of Navicache, that's because it's a listing site (i.e. not also a geocaching association, unlike GC.com). How could a listing site get involved anyway? It's just somewhere to publicise cache details; the caches are the responsibility of the cache owner.

[t.a.folk]

Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach.

like this old permit agreement below for another area .
(surprising what one can find by googling )

No getting away from it.:lol:..liable for damages,
as in notes (1 )and (2) on 2nd page .

Why shouldn't cachers be liable,
Muggles are ,but ut some might not realise that.
At least cachers have been fore warned .

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/Comission_Reports.pdf

[martybartfast]

Strictly speaking, not true. A cache seeker should be aware of the extra liabilities involved on land covered by the agreement, above and beyond the bylaws.

But I don't think a cache seeker needs to know about the agreement. As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it, most cachers won't even be aware that the agreement exists, the cache pages probably don't mention it so how can a regular cacher be expected to abide by it? it certainly wouldn't stand up in court. On the other hand as far as I can see the agreement in relation to cache seekers doesn't stipulate anything other than that which already exists for members of the public using FC land (e.g. only park in carparks, don't cause a nuisance, don't cause damage, etc.) and those regulations & bylaws are usually posted at carparks etc.

Edit to add:

Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach.

While I agree that the New Forest agreement is somewhat restrictive surely it's better than what exists with the NW Forestry Comission, where they expect individuals to stump up £25 a time for placing a cache? At least we have some caches in the NF, and I think we've made some progress from no caches ->100 caches ->150 caches, so maybe the GAGB can cover the contentious issues at the next renegotiation.

[Happy Humphrey]

But I don't think a cache seeker needs to know about the agreement. As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it, most cachers won't even be aware that the agreement exists, the cache pages probably don't mention it so how can a regular cacher be expected to abide by it? it certainly wouldn't stand up in court. On the other hand as far as I can see the agreement in relation to cache seekers doesn't stipulate anything other than that which already exists for members of the public using FC land (e.g. only park in carparks, don't cause a nuisance, don't cause damage, etc.) and those regulations & bylaws are usually posted at carparks etc.

Why shouldn't cachers be liable,
Muggles are ,but ut some might not realise that.
At least cachers have been fore warned .

I mentioned that this agreement gives responsibilities to cachers on top of the normal bylaws. For example, if you go caching in the New Forest and one of the spectators gets injured (don't ask me why there should be spectators; it's in the agreement though), you're liable. I don't imagine that's in the normal bylaws. Nor would muggles be held liable for spectators (unless muggling is a regulated spectator sport) .
I expect that if you're caught with a GPSr and breaking one of the rules, ignorance of the agreement will be no defence as far as the FC is concerned.

If you think that these are just the bylaws, then read the rules again more carefully and don't assume that things that don't seem to apply are just there for no reason. Every word will have been thought about and agreed.

[martybartfast]

I mentioned that this agreement gives responsibilities to cachers on top of the normal bylaws. For example, if you go caching in the New Forest and one of the spectators gets injured (don't ask me why there should be spectators; it's in the agreement though), you're liable.

Although IANAL I still maintain that I can't be held accountable to an agreement made between two parties to which I was not a signatory. The only bits of this agreement that would apply to me are those that are already part of the wider bylaws which apply to all members of the public. If I was caching and some spectator was so taken aback by my masculine physique and brilliant caching ability that they fell out of a tree then the FC couldn't hold me accountable as per the agreement because I was not a party to that agreement and am therefore not bound by it, a court would throw it out without a second thought. They might have some chance of going after the GAGB for compo as that's who they have an agreement with, but that's not my problem is it?

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm also not a lawyer, but I think you're quite right there, marty.

So what's the point of all these rules; do they only apply if you're a member of the GAGB? It would rather put me off joining if I lived within reach of somewhere covered by the agreement.

[Icenians]

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.

May I suggest that i you want this sort of thing to happen, you actually make more of a effort o those sites. A once a year post to say, we are having an election, is simply not enough of an effort. If you want reviewers on TC to know about these agreements then you need to interact with them and let them know that they exist. You cannot simply hope that, for example my US based approvers, just happen by the GAGB database.

[Icenians]

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 .

Now Alan, don't be too shocked by this. I agree with you!

There seems to be in this whole thread a counter arguement to Alans points that isn't 150 better than none. This isn't the point. The point is the limits per cacher and time limit. (I see Alans request as to who's restriction that was still hasn't been answered)

OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this. Where in this agreement are virtual caches catered for? Can I place one? Is it allowed to go over the 150 limit? Will the FC remove it? This agreement has been put together without any thought of the other listing sites. Are the New Forest FC even aware of the other sites? Do they realise that you have no control on those sites?

[amberel]

OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this. Where in this agreement are virtual caches catered for? Can I place one? Is it allowed to go over the 150 limit? Will the FC remove it? This agreement has been put together without any thought of the other listing sites. Are the New Forest FC even aware of the other sites? Do they realise that you have no control on those sites?

I think what some people lose sight of is that without this agreement, NO physical caches would be allowed in the New Forest. No Groundspeak caches. No TerraCaches. No NaviCaches. The authorities would remove every cache they became aware of. So the agreement is an ENABLING agreement, not a restricting agreement.

While GAGB have no control over the TerraCache and NaviCache sites, the FC do - they can physically remove the caches (and prior to the first GAGB agreement they DID remove all caches). GAGB have enabled TerraCaching and NaviCaching to take place within the New Forest, within the constraints of the agreement. TerraCachers and NaviCachers have reason to be grateful to GAGB for negotiating the agreement - without it, permission for their caches has been explicitly refused.

As the people who have enabled caching to take place, it seems to me that they have every right to manage it as they believe is to the best advantage of the majority of cachers, and I think they've done an excellent job.

There is no limit on virtual caches. It has been stated that the number in the agreement covers physical containers, hence the point about multi-caches having only one physical container.

In a previous email Kev also said "May I suggest that if you want this sort of thing to happen, you actually make more of an effort on those sites." GAGB has made considerably more effort to establish communication than have the other sites - any blame for a lack of communication must lie with the other sites.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm not sure about Terracaching and others, but I understand Navicache to be merely a listing site. The point being, that the caches belong to the cache placer and it therefore follows that it's up to the cache placer to negotiate permission for his/her cache. The listing site used is irrelevant, which is why Navicache doesn't have to be involved.

[amberel]

I'm not sure about Terracaching and others, but I understand Navicache to be merely a listing site. The point being, that the caches belong to the cache placer and it therefore follows that it's up to the cache placer to negotiate permission for his/her cache. The listing site used is irrelevant, which is why NaviCache doesn't have to be involved.

Well, the issue is whether or not a site is willing to list caches for which permission has been explicitly refused. If a NaviCacher placed a cache (anywhere) for which permission had been explicitly refused, and if NaviCache were aware of this, I would hope they would not list it, or remove the listing.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

Here's my take on it.

In the "old days", GC.com used to be effectively the same as Navicache. All you had to do was assure the reviewer that "adequate permission" had been given. This is carefully worded, as in some cases (quite rightly) "adequate" is "no permission". Generally, only the cache owner can judge this; knowledge of local customs might be necessary. I've always taken this to be no more than a gentle reminder to the cache submitter that permission might be required, along with a mechanism to steer blame away from the listing site.

At a location where explicit permission IS required but it is refused, you could still assure the reviewer that you have adequate permission (it's just a tick in a box). Of course you'd be lying; but it's not GC.com's problem as it's just a listing site and how are they to know what happened behind the scenes? So in general, they are "willing to list caches for which permission has been explicitly refused" as long as they don't know.

With the proliferation of GC.com caches, a change has occurred and Groundspeak has begun asking for proof of permission in certain locations, thus taking on some responsibility for these caches. Navicache hasn't done this, probably can't and wouldn't want to anyway, and remains a site where you can list your cache and be responsible for it yourself.

[Alan White]

After a couple of days away it's good to return to see that others have now joined the debate, on both sides. I'll pick just a few points to comment on...

As on the map shown on address below .
www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/map-new-forest.pdf/$FILE/map-new-forest.pdf

That's very useful in that it tries to show the FC area in conjunction with the NF. But I maintain that a map of that nature is inadequate for managing an agreement on a hobby which uses technology with near metre-level accuracy.

The rules about where you can drive in the N.F.are the same for muggles as they are for cachers.

Exactly my point. So it, and a lot of the other rules, don't need to be in the agreement.

Don't recall if you have ever been to the New Forest

It's not really relevant to a discussion on this agreement as my concerns are about points of principle and precedence but, yes, I have been to the New Forest. Only once, I think, as I didn't like it and didn't think it to be anything special. I didn't like it partly because of the large signs along the roads telling you what you can do (not much) and can't do (lots). I think the agreement is a product of the same mind that placed those signs, and don't they detract from the prettiness of the area? That said, I didn't think it anything special because it looks no different from any other large pine forest, of which there are hundreds in England. But we digress...

"We're the Forestry Comission, and we don't negotiate with individuals for caches in the New Forest, please go to the GAGB with whom we have an agreement"

Having an agreement with one entity doesn't preclude having an agreement with another. But I think you encapsulate how NF see the agreement: they think they have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caching activity on NF land. They don't: at best they have an agreement for GAGB members to place and seek caches there, though the agreement itself authorises only GAGB committee.

As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.

They most certainly do, for the reasons I and others have detailed.

I think Alan's right. It would have been better to start again with new negotiations

Actually, if I recall correctly, all the restrictions like 11, 12, 13, 17 etc were in the original version of the agreement. I pointed out at the time that they were overly restrictive and unnecessary, even dangerous for the furtherance of caching as a hobby. My comments were ignored or derided then just as they are now. I'm prepared to be corrected by someone who has copies of both versions but as far as I can see there are only two changes in this version: the increase from 100 to 150; and the GAGB-imposed limits on ownership, lifetime and physicals. My comments in this thread initially referred only to the GAGB-imposed limits but the thread has developed from there.

my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach. I urge the GAGB to push for the same rights and responsibilities for cache seekers as for other members of the public, not to treat them as some sort of sports event organisers.

Exactly so, though I would delete "managed by the FC" since if GAGB - a body supposedly interested in furthering caching in GB - is prepared to act in ways detrimental to cachers by making us liable for things beyond those the general public are liable for, then it won't be long before GAGB thinks it's reponsible for all caching in GB and is making rules on ownership and lifetime everywhere.

Why shouldn't cachers be liable

We are: but we are no more liable than a member of the general public. In fact, we are the general public.

I think the linked document is interesting in that it shows FC's train of thought and the reason why the caching agreement is phrased the way it is. In fact, much of the wording in the two agreements is identical. You probably won't be surprised to learn that if I were one of the Friends of Brandon Wood I wouldn't have agreed to that document. The very first item: "(1) Members of the public are permitted to enter Forestry Commission land entirely at their own risk, on the condition that they will have no claim whatsoever against the Forestry Commission for any loss"
is enough to explain where FC thinks it's coming from. That clause and the following one are, just like 11 & 12 in the caching agreement, attempts to absolve FC of their own liablity for maintaining in a safe condition the land which they manage and to which they invite the public. I have little doubt that those clauses, if tested, would be found to be unfair and therefore without value. But we don't want to have to test those clauses, do we?

As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it

While IANAL I believe that to be true. However, it might be possible to show that a cacher should have had knowledge of the agreement. It would be difficult, for example, for anyone contributing to this thread to argue that they didn't know about the agreement. And this is a public forum. It would probably also be reasonable to expect that a GAGB member is aware of the agreement because it was negotiated by GAGB and then published in a place which one would expect GAGB members to visit. It all comes back to testing the agreement, and my stance is that we don't want to put ourselves in that position.

ignorance of the agreement will be no defence as far as the FC is concerned.

Neatly following on, I believe that that's true. The NF believe they have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caching. We know they don't, but NF will assume that anyone caching in NF is doing so under this agreement.

They might have some chance of going after the GAGB for compo as that's who they have an agreement with, but that's not my problem is it?

Yes, it is. I assume that we are all interested in the furtherance of caching as a hobby? If we are all so interested then anything which could hurt caching must be addressed. If GAGB were sued under this agreement then the likely result - aside from the monetary issues as I don't know where the GAGB consititution leaves the committee and members there - is that there would be no GAGB. And, on the once bitten twice shy principle, it's likely that there would then never be a GB caching organisation. Even worse, the fallout from NF's attempt to sue would ensure that caching came into the spotlight in a way that is unlikely to show us favourably but is likely to bring caching into disrepute with - given FC's size - such visibility that we would not like the result.

So it is in everyone's - including seekers' - interest to abide by this agreement unless and until it is changed to be more in favour of cachers. In its present form I can't agree to its terms so whether I think it applies to me or not it's better for caching that I don't cache in NF. This isn't a great personal denial as there are plenty of caches between me and the NF but I would feel the same if I lived in the NF.

So yes, it is your problem.

OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this.

Actually I don't think that they do: a Groundspeak reviewer does but as Groundspeak have no control over other listing sites then that clearly can't be the case. You may have seen that one of my early points was that the entire agreement is peppered with references to Groundspeak but no other listing sites, and the agreement can only be enforced by Groundspeak because GAGB have no power to do it despite being the only party other than FC to the agreement. In other words, GAGB have agreed to an agreement which they have no power to uphold.

[sandvika]

I agree there's still scope to improve the agreement, primarily in terms of layout and clarity. That's a work in progress. Unless you are actually engaged in the specific activity of placing or seeking a physical cache then you are simply a member of the public. I'd say that anywhere other than GZ you are not caching; I'm hoping that any provisions that are not specific to cachers but apply to all can be cited by reference rather than by inclusion in the agreement.

The management plan meets the needs and has approval of local cachers directly affected by the agreement. It recognises that there will be renewed pressure on the land covered by the agreement and seeks to treat it as a renewable resource, which is a pragmatic outcome. It is not a precedent, each agreement is negotiated separately; it is not the only current agreement that imposes limits.

There are other land owners where permission to cache has not been granted because GAGB has not been prepared to accept the land owners requirements or constraints.

[t.a.folk]

That said, I didn't think it anything special because it looks no different from any other large pine forest, of which there are hundreds in England. But we digress...

If we may be permitted to further digress , in some peoples opinion the New Forest is different and special .




The New Forest N.P. has the largest area of "unsown" vegetation in low land England,larest area of depressions on peat substrates & the largest area of mature semi-natural Beech woodland in England.
It has the largest area of lowland heath in Western Europe & most extensive area of active wood pature with old Oak & Beech in North West Europe.
It has about 90 clearly defind mires or bogs,within 20 different valley systems, with more of this habitat in the New Forest than the rest of Britain & Western Europe combined.
The open heath land, mire & pasture woodland of the New Forest are unique at this scale & in this combination.
The variety & quality of the habitats support many rare or resticted species of plants & animals, & for some the New Forest is the main or only stronghold in the U.K.
[Extracts from introduction of a "Topic paper - Biodiversity, Geology & Landscape] .

[Bill D (wwh)]

I don't have the time to copy and paste to reply to everything that I've seen here that may not yet be answered, but I hope the following covers at least a few points.

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest. If we become aware of NC or TC caches there we'll pass the details on to the FC just as we do with GC caches. It's then up to the FC to decide what if any action they wish to take. Given the non-cooperation of NC and TC it's obvious that they may well decide to remove them.

As has been said again and again, GAGB have often tried to make contact with NC and TC, with no success.

As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner, and to make the rules, and they are rules not guidelines, as to how to do that. Yes, of course we've made those rules, ones which we felt were the best way of dealing with the situation. Given the support that we've had in this thread, and from others who don't wish to post here, I think we've done a good job in difficult circumstances.

I agree with t.a.folk that the New Forest is special, and it certainly isn't a large pine forest - most of it does not consist of pine plantations. When it was given its current name the word Forest meant a hunting area. The pine plantations are relatively new, and man-made. It's an extremely diverse area, and in my opinion a very special one. I think it's also worth noting that, slowly, the FC are removing pine plantations and letting the land return to its natural state.

[Happy Humphrey]

As has been said again and again, GAGB have often tried to make contact with NC and TC, with no success.

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?

[Bill D (wwh)]

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?

I'm sure you're right that NC wouldn't be interested - I've formed the same impression as you about their ownership, etc.

If the FC had issues with an NC cache in the Forest, but were prepared to discuss the matter, then yes, initially we would try to negotiate with the cache owner, as I have done with GC caches, but if they were unco-operative then we'd go to NC, but I doubt if that would achieve anything. If that were the case, then unfortunately I think the FC would feel that they would have to remove the cache. That was the scenario I was referring to in my last post, but on re-reading it I realize that I didn't make it very clear.

[sandvika]

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?

I'm endeavouring to build bridges with NC. Perhaps I'll get further than those who have tried before as I'm actually playing the game on NC as well and have been for nearly as long as on GC. I have had a NC refused first time at review so I've proven there is a review .

Ideally the cache owners should uphold the permission to cache agreement of their own volition, just as people usually get out of the swimming pool to go to the toilet of their own volition. Non-compliance in either case can reasonably be met with appropriate sanctions.

[Alan White]

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest.As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner

Neither of those is true. GAGB committee is perfectly at liberty, as is anyone else, to make an agreement to place caches in an area and to manage those caches. It might arguably be able to extend the terms of that agreement to include GAGB members.

But GAGB cannot act for other cachers and cannot demand they comply with the terms of an agreement in which those cachers had no involvement and with which they do not agree. GAGB does not set caching law in the New Forest or anywhere else.

[dodgydaved]

GAGB does not set caching law in the New Forest or anywhere else.

....No Alan, but the New Forest authorities, as has been pointed out to you many times, have imposed their conditions on ANY cacher who wishes to place caches on the land they own or manage, before they give their permission for the cache to be placed - as they have- I believe, every right to do.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh)
The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest.As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner

<Alan White wrote:>Neither of those is true.

I'm sorry, Alan, but as so often, you're talking nonsense.

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest. Whether that is possible in practice is another matter, but that does not make my statement untrue.

GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner. Again, whether or not we're going to be able to do that is debatable, but that doesn't make that statement untrue either.

You've said of my statements, "Neither of those is true". But in fact both are true

I resent being called a liar.

[DrDick&Vick]

I'm sorry, Alan, but as so often, you're talking nonsense.

Well I had stayed away from this Forum for a week or so in the hope that this subject would have settled, how wrong can you be.
Come on Alan just how long can you keep hammering this subject before you accept that you are not correct and that the agreement is ok.
You and your 'holier than thou' and 'I know best' attitude really does grate after a while.

I shall now stay away from the forum for another few days and see whether anything changes.

Thanks to Bill and the folks at GAGB for obtaining the permission and allowing caching to continue in the New Forest.