How to influence cache placements at Terracaching

[Icenians]

Hi all

We often have quoted in these forum that various attempts have been made to contact the site admin at the other listing sites. For those that are not aware, I don't cache at GC but use TC (Yes I know I logged a GC the other day but I was hunting a TC that was meant to be in it).

TC uses a different method of cache review to the review system on GC. The TC system is that everyone is a reviewer if they choose to sponsor another cacher.

So, I maintain that contacting the site owner at TC is a fruitless task, we that play on TC can't get in touch with him so I see little reason a small association based on a tiny island thousands of miles away are going to get a response!

It is pointless the GAGB attempting to treat all listing sites the same, why should they operate in the same way? Souldn't the GAGB be attempting to influence cache placement within the UK via different means appropriate to the site involved?

So, how would folk suggest that UK cachers on TC be brought under the GAGB umbrella?

Kev

The committee are making further attempts to communicate.

Though really why should we do all the running. There are several people on here who cache on that so called quality site (I have yet to see any evidence of this).

Sandvika is on the committee and a teracahcer. What more do you want? You keep telling us we are wrong but don't give us any realistic alternative!

[Icenians]

The committee are making further attempts to communicate.

Though really why should we do all the running. There are several people on here who cache on that so called quality site (I have yet to see any evidence of this).

Sandvika is on the committee and a teracahcer. What more do you want? You keep telling us we are wrong but don't give us any realistic alternative!

I'm sorry! You wish to represent UK cachers and negociate on our behalf but the cachers should leap to join you? Good luck with that approach. Unbelieveable!!


You're main answer seems to be that you will resume trying to contact the same way you failed last time.

Sandvika is on the committee because he was elected there, not because the GAGB committee wanted a terracacher!

OK, an alternative. Look at how approvals work on TC, join TC, become active, engage with the TCers, not some bloke at the top who isn't interested, and SPONSOR others. Hey presto, you're a reviewer and in a position to influence cache placement.

Of course i would need a number of people and a spread around the UK. It wouldn't get total influence but it would be better than doing nothing except sending the odd email!

I am sorry for having an opinion.

We don't just send the odd email. Most of us are also members of terracaching.

I no longer look for teracaches though I ma happy to both sponsor and review.

Most of what I have seen on terracaching (locally) in my personal perception are protest caches

[Icenians]

I am sorry for having an opinion.

We don't just send the odd email. Most of us are also members of terracaching.

I no longer look for teracaches though I ma happy to both sponsor and review.

Most of what I have seen on terracaching (locally) in my personal perception are protest caches

I don't have an issue with you having an opinion, just the fact that as someone elected to the comittee of an organisation that is meant to be REPRESENTING cachers to landowners feeling that they shouldn't be doing the running. If you feel that it's too much effort, don't volounteer!

I've no idea which area you are from but I can say that none of my caches are protest caches nor did I get that feeling from Devon recently. I simply like the underdog and the style of the game at TC.

But none of this advances the issue of influencing cache placement on TC in the UK.

Like I said, happy to review caches, still waiting for one to come through for review.

Long wait.

Not a very effective way of communicating after the cache has been placed though?

[Happy Humphrey]

Kev has a good point, IMO.
This seems to apply to every listing site apart from GC.com, which as I've said elsewhere appears to be more of a geocaching body than just a listing site.

So why try and contact a representative of the listing site? I think generally there just simply is no such person, therefore any communication is bound to be in vain. If I was setting up a new listing site, I'd make sure that I never got involved with landowner permissions or other issues and I'd make it clear that I merely set up a blank database for people to use. Apart from ensuring no illegal use of the web site, I'd have nothing to do with the data; much less the physical caches.

So the people to contact are the cache placers; and they may decide to remain anonymous, ignoring any contact from the GAGB. It's the nature of the game.

[Icenians]

Like I said, happy to review caches, still waiting for one to come through for review.

Long wait.

Not a very effective way of communicating after the cache has been placed though?

Er, when is the communication done at GC if there is a problem then?

If the people you sponsor are not placing caches then you don't have a problem. Of course caches are being placed all the time which is why I suggest that you need more thn 1 or 2.

I simply put forward a suggestion, at your request, as I maintain that trying to contact someone at the very top who simply doesn't want to be contacted is a waste of time. I would also suggest that for the site owner to actually be able to engineer some method for GAGB to have influence, changes would have to be made to the way TC is played. That is an approach that is doomed to failure.

I would suggest that engagement with the actual reviewers at TC, i.e the TC cachers, is far more likely to provide results than the current approach. I really do no see how repeating the approach that has been seen to fail can possibly be worthwhile!

Kev

Kev

Have we said anywhere that is the only approach we are trying?

[Icenians]

Have we said anywhere that is the only approach we are trying?

Ah well. I would refer you to the secrecy thread then! If the committee wish to keep everything close to their collective chest then they must deal with the flack and misunderstandings that arise from that.

As an active TC cacher I can safely say that the only attempt to work with TC at the cacher level is an annual post informing us that the GAGB elections are due. Perhaps this is the level of communication you are refering to.

Kev

It is not about secrecy, it is about a committee doing its job and making decisions, that's the whole point of a committee.

When and if we make approaches in other ways I am sure you will be aware of them.

Perhaps you as a frequent GAGB forum and terracaching forum user could help promote the GAGB?

[Bill D (wwh)]

We do engage in dialogue with individual cachers on TC, and as it happens both of my own sponsors there are members of GAGB. But trying to contact every individual UK Terracacher would of course be a hopeless task, and forum posts are no solution because of course so many cachers don't use the forums.

What we'd like to see is some recognition from TC that at least some landowners require permission to be sought before caches are placed on their land, and that there are blanket agreements with many landowners which have conditions that the landowners require to be met. That recognition can of course only come from the top, and unfortunately the top remains silent.

That said, I would welcome suggestions as to how UK TC cachers could be brought under GAGB's umbrella.

[jacobite]

All we're looking for, are people who could represent terra and navi. We can't deal with all terracachers at the same time, as we'd go round in circles and never get anything done.
It's terracaching's structure that stops us from being able to find someone who has the ability do deal with the needs of terracachers in the UK.
Here's an idea? Instead of the GAGB continually trying to find someone who can speak on your behalf, why don't UK terracachers communicate with each other and nominate a trusted member of the terra community to deal with the GAGB.

[Icenians]

We do engage in dialogue with individual cachers on TC, and as it happens both of my own sponsors there are members of GAGB. But trying to contact every individual UK Terracacher would of course be a hopeless task, and forum posts are no solution because of course so many cachers don't use the forums.

What we'd like to see is some recognition from TC that at least some landowners require permission to be sought before caches are placed on their land, and that there are blanket agreements with many landowners which have conditions that the landowners require to be met. That recognition can of course only come from the top, and unfortunately the top remains silent.

That said, I would welcome suggestions as to how UK TC cachers could be brought under GAGB's umbrella.

May I suggest you build a presence on the terracaching wiki as a start. Any sponsored user can edit those pages.

[Icenians]

All we're looking for, are people who could represent terra and navi. We can't deal with all terracachers at the same time, as we'd go round in circles and never get anything done.
It's terracaching's structure that stops us from being able to find someone who has the ability do deal with the needs of terracachers in the UK.
Here's an idea? Instead of the GAGB continually trying to find someone who can speak on your behalf, why don't UK terracachers communicate with each other and nominate a trusted member of the terra community to deal with the GAGB.

That's just off loading the GAGB committee's problem to an individual. There is no real way around the structure at TC so the need exists for GAGB to work within that structure. Nobody is suggesting for a minute that GAGB can or should personally engage with ever cacher but an attempt has to be made for communication from an organisation that claims to represent cachers.

I started this thread in an attempt to have some positive discussion and ideas to help the GAGB towards working with TC. It seems I'm failing in that goal. I was kind of hoping someone out there would have a suggestion, or combination of suggestions, that would help.

I'm getting the impression from this that the GAGB would rather TC just stayed quietly out of the way

May I suggest you build a presence on the terracaching wiki as a start. Any sponsored user can edit those pages.

To quote the Wiki guidelines

It is not acceptable to post in the wiki : Info specifically related to one cache or one part of the world.

[Icenians]

To quote the Wiki guidelines

It is not acceptable to post in the wiki : Info specifically related to one cache or one part of the world.

OK, fair point. I didn't see that

Scrap that idea then

[Icenians]

To quote the Wiki guidelines

It is not acceptable to post in the wiki : Info specifically related to one cache or one part of the world.

Of course in the section immediatly above titled "Acceptable info to have here" is this

Directory of Local Caching Regulations, organized by Country/State/City.

Seems rather contradictory but worth a try.

[Happy Humphrey]

That recognition can of course only come from the top, and unfortunately the top remains silent.

That said, I would welcome suggestions as to how UK TC cachers could be brought under GAGB's umbrella.

I was arguing that there is no "top" by design, so of course it seems silent.

The usual way that you get people under an association's "umbrella" is to get them to join.

But you have to offer something, and things that look like restrictions and formalities aren't much of an offering. However worthy they might be in the long run. The other problem is that of caching's great strength; it's informal, you can opt in and out as you see fit, and you don't need anyone else, (including geocaching associations) to help you.

Sorry if that doesn't amount to a helpful suggestion, but sometimes it's useful to identify the real problem before getting on to the solution stage.

[jacobite]

I'm getting the impression from this that the GAGB would rather TC just stayed quietly out of the way

Your impression is wrong, that's not what I want.

[Icenians]

It is not about secrecy, it is about a committee doing its job and making decisions, that's the whole point of a committee.

Wrong thread but with no minutes, no election results, no anything this committee operates very much in secret.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I suppose this could be said to be slightly off topic, but the tenth top referrer to TC, as listed on their home page, is GAGB.

We're already listed in their Directory of Local Caching Groups.

[Icenians]

I suppose this could be said to be slightly off topic, but the tenth top referrer to TC, as listed on their home page, is GAGB.

We're already listed in their Directory of Local Caching Groups.

You were 3rd in the list. That goes up each time a thread such as this is happening. It's not because the GAGB committee is doing anyting.

[nobbynobbs]

Not sure what I can bring to this discussion but here goes.

Personally, I've also tried the top approach to TC and Navi. This was because of the nature of what we were trying to do, send a message to all members of the community in the UK about our existance.
Forum posts wouldn't achieve that, it doesn't even do it for all the members of the GAGB as so many pop in every now and then, that's what happens on most forums.
So we thought that it would be worth a go to try the top and see if they could help in some way.

Why do we need to approach them?
So that we can honestly say that we represent the views of ALL UK CACHERS not just a vocal minority.

What do they get out the deal?
Well assuming they care if they are allowed to place caches then they get a set of agreed permissions to place caches, they get a reference body able to call on loads of experience to extend those agreements and a body that is set up to represent them within their own country.

Should we do all the running?
Again this assumes that the people on the other sites care whether they have permission to place caches and don't see what the GAGB do as imposing a set of rules and regulations. That's not what we do. We try to take that hassle away by discussing with the land owners, then cachers don't have that hassle and can just go out and have the fun of cache placing with the knowledge that they are allowed.
This isn't about imposing ourselves, extending our domain and giving ourselves a power trip.
So I would say that the people on the various sites that use the GAGB should do some running and try to spread the word. I'd personally ( and I'm sure the rest of the committee would agree) would love to have every member of all the other sites listed as members here and regularly post their opinions in our forums. That assumes that you feel that we do a good job and think that the other members would benefit from being on here and discussing things.

Hope this helped in some way. :cheers:

[studlyone]

You were 3rd in the list. That goes up each time a thread such as this is happening. It's not because the GAGB committee is doing anyting.

Other than the link to Terracaching.com together with Navicache.com and geocaching.com on every page except for forum ones. I believe that it's because of those links that the GAGB features consistantly on the referal list - nugatry point so swiftly moving on.

I am not sure why you feel so threatened by the GAGB and its general runnings, every time you ask for some info that is "hidden" that information no matter its relevance is given, that isn't the way a secretive organisation works. The GAGB has no alterior motives and is certainly not secretive.

I believe that the GAGB adds real value to geocaching in the UK and rather than sitting back and sniping at it geocachers should actively get involved with it. The Land Agreements Database is a great source of knowledge for geocachers looking for agreements already in place therefore making things easier for them.

I put it to you as a seasoned Terracacher, how should the GAGB best support Terracaching? As an insider on this 'listing' site what are your thoughts to the way that the GAGB should evolve to support both you and your fellow Terracachers.

[uktim]

So that we can honestly say that we represent the views of ALL UK CACHERS not just a vocal minority.

That's never gong to happen an associationcan only ever claim to represent it's own members. GAGB will never be able to claim to represent all UK cachers and shouldn't even be considering such an absurd possibility!

[jacobite]

Not sure what I can bring to this discussion but here goes.

Personally, I've also tried the top approach to TC and Navi. This was because of the nature of what we were trying to do, send a message to all members of the community in the UK about our existance.
Forum posts wouldn't achieve that, it doesn't even do it for all the members of the GAGB as so many pop in every now and then, that's what happens on most forums.
So we thought that it would be worth a go to try the top and see if they could help in some way.

Why do we need to approach them?
So that we can honestly say that we represent the views of ALL UK CACHERS not just a vocal minority.

What do they get out the deal?
Well assuming they care if they are allowed to place caches then they get a set of agreed permissions to place caches, they get a reference body able to call on loads of experience to extend those agreements and a body that is set up to represent them within their own country.

Should we do all the running?
Again this assumes that the people on the other sites care whether they have permission to place caches and don't see what the GAGB do as imposing a set of rules and regulations. That's not what we do. We try to take that hassle away by discussing with the land owners, then cachers don't have that hassle and can just go out and have the fun of cache placing with the knowledge that they are allowed.
This isn't about imposing ourselves, extending our domain and giving ourselves a power trip.
So I would say that the people on the various sites that use the GAGB should do some running and try to spread the word. I'd personally ( and I'm sure the rest of the committee would agree) would love to have every member of all the other sites listed as members here and regularly post their opinions in our forums. That assumes that you feel that we do a good job and think that the other members would benefit from being on here and discussing things.

Hope this helped in some way. :cheers:

Well said, Matt. Couldn't have put it better myself!

[Icenians]

Not sure what I can bring to this discussion but here goes.

Personally, I've also tried the top approach to TC and Navi. This was because of the nature of what we were trying to do, send a message to all members of the community in the UK about our existance.
Forum posts wouldn't achieve that, it doesn't even do it for all the members of the GAGB as so many pop in every now and then, that's what happens on most forums.
So we thought that it would be worth a go to try the top and see if they could help in some way.

We Terracachers can't get in touch with the man at the top, which a quick read of the TC forums will show, so I don't see how GAGB is going to get anywhere in that direction. It's not like I haven't pointed that out before.

Why do we need to approach them?
So that we can honestly say that we represent the views of ALL UK CACHERS not just a vocal minority.

I would refer you to my numurous posts right back to the day a bunch of folk announced that they had formd an association. You can only EVER speak for your members.

What do they get out the deal?
Well assuming they care if they are allowed to place caches then they get a set of agreed permissions to place caches, they get a reference body able to call on loads of experience to extend those agreements and a body that is set up to represent them within their own country.

I'm not sure who you mean by 'They' in the bit above. They as in the cachers or they as in the site owners?

Cachers, whatever site can ecome memers of the association. Why should the people from the top have influence in anyone joining that association?

Should we do all the running?
Again this assumes that the people on the other sites care whether they have permission to place caches and don't see what the GAGB do as imposing a set of rules and regulations. That's not what we do. We try to take that hassle away by discussing with the land owners, then cachers don't have that hassle and can just go out and have the fun of cache placing with the knowledge that they are allowed.
This isn't about imposing ourselves, extending our domain and giving ourselves a power trip.

Why is there an assmption that cachers who are not GAGB memers do not get permission for caches?

Have all the caches on GC got permission?

The GAGB DOES impose rules and Regulations. You did it only last week when you decided that we could only own 10 caches within a certain area. You simply cannot have it both ways.

So I would say that the people on the various sites that use the GAGB should do some running and try to spread the word. I'd personally ( and I'm sure the rest of the committee would agree) would love to have every member of all the other sites listed as members here and regularly post their opinions in our forums. That assumes that you feel that we do a good job and think that the other members would benefit from being on here and discussing things.

Hope this helped in some way. :cheers:

Isn't this just a little bit, "we found it too hard so go sort it out for yourselves?"

Can I ask how interacting with users on TC is any different from interacting with them on GC? The only difference as far as I can see is that the reviewers at GC get involved in negociations and have the power to filter all GAGB guidelines at cache placement time. Tha last part is interaction at the same level as a policeman stopping you from speading.

So why is it interaction at other sites is more of a chore than on GC?

Does the GAGB do a good job? No I don't think it does! You have managed over the years, and this isn't a new organisation, to amass a tiny proportion of UK cachers. You have managed to enthuse around 11 percent of those to actually be bothered enough to say who they would like to negociate for them. You manage to operate in near secrecy and offer virtually nothing to the members.

It is blatently obvious that as an organisation it has a problem with relevence to the everyday cacher and even to it's memership. All it offers, outside of the forums, is a set of further rules applied to cache placement.

As I stated somewhere up above, I actually started this thread in the hope that a discussion would come out of it about how the GAGB could ge involved with cache placement at TC, and gave a suggestion along the way.

Kev

We Terracachers can't get in touch with the man at the top, which a quick read of the TC forums will show, so I don't see how GAGB is going to get anywhere in that direction. It's not like I haven't pointed that out before.



I would refer you to my numurous posts right back to the day a bunch of folk announced that they had formd an association. You can only EVER speak for your members.



I'm not sure who you mean by 'They' in the bit above. They as in the cachers or they as in the site owners?

Cachers, whatever site can ecome memers of the association. Why should the people from the top have influence in anyone joining that association?


Why is there an assmption that cachers who are not GAGB memers do not get permission for caches?

Have all the caches on GC got permission?

The GAGB DOES impose rules and Regulations. You did it only last week when you decided that we could only own 10 caches within a certain area. You simply cannot have it both ways.



Isn't this just a little bit, "we found it too hard so go sort it out for yourselves?"

Can I ask how interacting with users on TC is any different from interacting with them on GC? The only difference as far as I can see is that the reviewers at GC get involved in negociations and have the power to filter all GAGB guidelines at cache placement time. Tha last part is interaction at the same level as a policeman stopping you from speading.

So why is it interaction at other sites is more of a chore than on GC?

Does the GAGB do a good job? No I don't think it does! You have managed over the years, and this isn't a new organisation, to amass a tiny proportion of UK cachers. You have managed to enthuse around 11 percent of those to actually be bothered enough to say who they would like to negociate for them. You manage to operate in near secrecy and offer virtually nothing to the members.

It is blatently obvious that as an organisation it has a problem with relevence to the everyday cacher and even to it's memership. All it offers, outside of the forums, is a set of further rules applied to cache placement.

As I stated somewhere up above, I actually started this thread in the hope that a discussion would come out of it about how the GAGB could ge involved with cache placement at TC, and gave a suggestion along the way.

Kev

If you think we do such a lousy job why do you spend so much of your time here?

[Icenians]

If you think we do such a lousy job why do you spend so much of your time here?

Because you guys are negociating with landowners in my name.

I have something of a vested interest in your activities in that area.

I don't happen to think all associations are a bad thing. I just think they need to be of use, relevent.

I also think that any association should be able to take scrutiny from it's members.

Kev

[Alan White]

Coo, you don't visit for a few days and a usually quiet forum suddenly has many posts of interest. There seem to be a few overlapping threads so I guess I may repeat some things. Sorry about that.

So why try and contact a representative of the listing site?...the people to contact are the cache placers

I agree. Kev has explained many times that TC in particular works without top-down management and therefore any attempt to work with TC in the same way as Groundspeak is bound to fail. But, as HH says, it goes deeper than that. The caches belong to, and are the responsibility of, the cache owner. The purpose of a listing site is simply to publicise the existence of the cache. Therefore I can't see why anyone, e.g. a land manager, would want or need to contact anyone but the cache owner.

I think the reason why we're having this debate is because we've become accustomed to dealing with the Groundspeak model and Groundspeak have historically been involved in, at the very least, putting land managers in touch with cache owners. Not only should this not be necessary but it also means that only the Groundspeak model works. But GAGB has to have a model which works for all listing sites, present and future. Since we can't know how cache listing might evolve then the only known thing is the cache owner. But things aren't that simple, and this is better continued in the other thread.

I'm getting the impression from this that the GAGB would rather TC just stayed quietly out of the way

It's not just TC. GAGB knows that whatever rules it decides to impose then Groundspeak will support them. All GAGB rules work only because of this cosy relationship, as GAGB has no power to enforce its own rules even on its members. So for NC & TC GAGB feels - and is - powerless to ensure compliance.

The usual way that you get people under an association's "umbrella" is to get them to join. But you have to offer something, and things that look like restrictions and formalities aren't much of an offering. However worthy they might be in the long run.

Wonderfully succinct, and a perfect summary of my view.

That's never gong to happen an associationcan only ever claim to represent it's own members. GAGB will never be able to claim to represent all UK cachers and shouldn't even be considering such an absurd possibility!

Oh dear, I'm agreeing with uktim . But it's not just representation that's the issue. GAGB attempts to include non-members in its agreements and to impose its rules on non-members. Authoritarian is the word that springs to mind.

Does the GAGB do a good job? No I don't think it does! You have managed over the years, and this isn't a new organisation, to amass a tiny proportion of UK cachers. You have managed to enthuse around 11 percent of those to actually be bothered enough to say who they would like to negociate for them.

Nor I. And I would love to see the statistics that Kev hints at. How many cachers are there in GB? How many are GAGB members? How many are active GAGB members and chose to vote at the last election? Aside from the first question no doubt GAGB will decline to answer a non-member but like Kev the impression I get is that only a small proportion of GB cachers are GAGB members, yet GAGB tries to impose its rules on all GB cachers.

As I stated somewhere up above, I actually started this thread in the hope that a discussion would come out of it about how the GAGB could ge involved with cache placement at TC

As I said above, and I think others have also said, the way for this to happen is for GAGB to deal with cachers rather than listing sites.

If you think we do such a lousy job why do you spend so much of your time here?

One thing - possibly the only thing - I'm grateful to GAGB for is the provision of a GB forum where issues of GB caching can be discussed without the constraining influence of a particular listing site. Also, as Kev says, GAGB is purporting to represent me and to include me in its rules. Neither of those is true and I have to be here to make that clear from time to time.

[Dave Gerrie]

the original post in this thread asks a fairly reasonable question (however much the thread has become somewhat emotive later on) and I think it might be an idea to get it back on track and, in the process, take a few principals as unchangeable.

in no particular order,

Firstly, rightly or wrongly, there is not, and never will be, a central way of guiding or influencing TC cache placements. That being so, alternative methods have to be investigated, and I would hazard a guess that the only way to do this is by promotion and education. (don't take this to mean that cache placements on TC are currently uneducated - you know what I mean).
So, how can this be acheived. Obviously, cooperation is required and for this to happen, I think we need to pursuade those that 'review' caches on TC that certain rules/guidelines/recommendations are a good thing. Many of them will hopefully be unarguably beneficial - the ban on DSWs for example. I'm sure there are others that can be agreed.

Secondly is the more contentious issue of land manager agreements and permission. I will start by saying that everyone is aware of caches that don't have permission, certainly on GC, and I would imagine that TC has some as well. I am also aware of caches on GC that have no identifying markers at all and again, I expect TC has some.

Personally, I think that land agreements are currently the most important aspect of GAGB - we all know that if land owners actively banned caches on their land (to the extent they researched locations and removed them) then our hobby would be in ruins. Therefore, we simply have to abide by any rules that are required by the land owner. Surely this is unarguable? Yes, in some cases, permission can be obtained for individual caches by bypassing the agreement but that is simply the result of large orgainsations with many employees.

So, the way I see the relationship with TC developing is by firstly contacting those members who currently review/sponsor. Can someone say how many this is? The earlier this is done, the less there will be (if my understanding of how TC reviewing works is correct). If they can be persuaded to participate in the GAGB - namely, in order to develop a set of Uk specific and VERY non-contentious guidelines.

Once these are agreed, then these can be used by all reviewers/sponsors across all sites. I recognises that TC is essentially rule-less, and that this is part of its ethos, and that Kev has disagreed with having to follow GAGB guidelines, but I'm hopeful that even he can see that guuidelines dicouraging certain cache placements are in everyone's best interest. (I used a cache on a railwayline example ages ago - this is the sort of thing that could be prevented...)

Sorry this is a bit rambling! make of it what you will!

Dave

[markandlynn]

Personally, I think that land agreements are currently the most important aspect of GAGB -
........
, we simply have to abide by any rules that are required by the land owner.

True i would not of been able to place my Loynton moss caches without the GAGB agreement.

the whole you hid it you are responsible thing makes more sense than you listed it on our website so we are responsible for it argument.

after all the original way to find geocaches was through a secret newsgroup and private websites on a one to one basis.

we are probably just a facebook or bebo application away from the same thing happening again.

[Happy Humphrey]

...I would hazard a guess that the only way to do this is by promotion and education. ...

Promotion and education is definitely the way to go. Forget attempts to get terracachers (and others) "on board". If you do no more than make them aware of these sensible guidelines, then you will have succeeded. Should a terracacher take issue with a particular guideline, they will have this forum to discuss it (once they know about it).

Personally, I think that land agreements are currently the most important aspect of GAGB - we all know that if land owners actively banned caches on their land (to the extent they researched locations and removed them) then our hobby would be in ruins. Therefore, we simply have to abide by any rules that are required by the land owner. Surely this is unarguable? Yes, in some cases, permission can be obtained for individual caches by bypassing the agreement but that is simply the result of large orgainsations with many employees.

I think that the GAGB should take one step back here. If you are seen as an advisory body, a consultancy if you like, then I feel sure that you would be accepted by all and sundry. You wouldn't have to claim to "represent" cachers in any way, but to be able to use members' experience and expertise to resolve particular cache issues and to maintain details of local agreements (and restrictions).

If you are seen as an enforcement body as well, you may have difficulty. The landowner should be aware of this in any negotiations. You should be saying "we'll make your views known to relevant geocachers" rather than "we'll make sure your ban is enforced", for instance. If cachers insist on ignoring a restriction, then they personally have to take the consequences. If that leads to a blanket ban over a wide area, again the GAGB can lead negotiations, but the landowner has to understand that that only so much can be done (by the nature of the game).

So, the way I see the relationship with TC developing is by firstly contacting those members who currently review/sponsor.

I'm not yet familiar with terracaching so I don't know what form it can take, but I think that an advertising campaign is in order.

[uktim]

If you think we do such a lousy job why do you spend so much of your time here?

AT present the fact that reviewers use GAGB guidelines as rules means that everyone has an interest in the GAGB whther they like it or not. Once this has stopped we can all go away

It might also be worth noting that the fact that the chairman of the GAGB has publically thanked you for you on this post shows the GAGB in a rather poor light IMO!

When committee members start patting one another on the back for such put-downs things are very wrong somewhere!

[lost it]

AT present the fact that reviewers use GAGB guidelines as rules means that everyone has an interest in the GAGB whther they like it or not. Once this has stopped we can all go away

why don't you go away anyway I mean no body really likes you, you only speak to stir things up....I and I know there are others find your attitude quite trollish

what your wanting will never happen, your a minority most people appreciate what gagb do, they do put a lot of work in protecting caches that otherwise would just be archived by groundspeak

[keehotee]

why don't you go away anyway I mean no body really likes you, you only speak to stir things up....I and I know there are others find your attitude quite trollish

what your wanting will never happen, your a minority most people appreciate what gagb do, they do put a lot of work in protecting caches that otherwise would just be archived by groundspeak

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with uktim, your statement above was out of order and unnecessary.

This is a forum - forums are by definition "a public meeting or assembly for open discussion ". Discussion is where differing ideas are kicked about and discussed - not just a place where everybody can sit back and pat each other on the back for all agreeing, all the time.

The one thing that has been really noticeable about this and the other contentious thread during the past week has been the arrogance of some people, and the antagonism that's been flung at anybody that dares speak out against the status quo.

Get a grip and grow up, and learn to accept that not everybody that disagrees with you is in the wrong!

[uktim]

why don't you go away anyway I mean no body really likes you, you only speak to stir things up....I and I know there are others find your attitude quite trollish

what your wanting will never happen, your a minority most people appreciate what gagb do, they do put a lot of work in protecting caches that otherwise would just be archived by groundspeak

WOW. What an apt forum name you have, you really do seem to have lost it

It's a bad day when you can't accept that other people genuinely have differing views to your own without resorting to outbursts like this

We all know that the GAGB do some good work, that doesn't mean that they're always right and it doesn't mean that their guidelines should be taken as hard and fast rules!

Most people around here are capable of debate, it appears that you have only made two posts in the last month. Neither had any real substance and both appear to be bizarre personal digs at me. If you can't make any genuine or topical posts and can't hack debate by others maybe it's you that should go away!

Lets all chill a little, we all say and do things when we feel strongly about something.

[Happy Humphrey]

Lets all chill a little, we all say and do things when we feel strongly about something.

Indeed. This was a useful discussion, and conducted peacefully despite some strong views.

Perhaps we've exhausted the topic; but if not, let's get back to a civil debate (on topic) again please. We don't want to end up like the GSP forum, where people spend more time worrying about other people's "angst" than actually talking about caching!

[sandvika]

I've been taking something of a back seat on this thread until now, as I wanted to see how it developed before wading in.

Thanks Kev, for posing the questions in the first place.

One thing is a given: unsympathetic placement of caches will result in trouble. The GAGB has taken time and painstaking trouble to come up with sensible placement guidelines, code of conduct and an increasing number of landowner consent agreements. This is done by cachers, for cachers and for the common good of our hobby.

The problem seems to be that some people don't notice, some people don't care and some people take exception to being offered advice maybe because they think its patronising.

The fact of the matter is that in UK a national caching association is an inevitable development, born out of necessity. The point at which people realise this will depend to a great extent on their personal experience.

People who list no caches, or very few caches on Groundspeak are less likely to run into review problems than those who place many.

People who list their caches on Navicache or Terracaching (currently less than 1% of UK caches between them) could potentially get away with anything, dependent on the level of review.

The fundamental problem that GAGB has, in my view, in getting its message across is that Groundspeak's UK reviewers are doing most of the "heavy lifting" when it comes to sorting out issues with caches. In a way, Groundspeak, with a sound commercial head wanting to avoid reputational damage to the hobby, has put in place a review mechanism that is by and large effective. In the case of UK, the UK reviewers also apply local practice, which is GAGB's guidelines. :cheers:

So the end result is that 99% of UK cache placements are in line with GAGB best practice but rather fewer than 99% of all UK cachers appreciate this or even consider that it is a good thing. Some might even argue that GAGB is unnecessary because of the Groundspeak review system. Better ask those doing the reviewing about that point of view!

Unsurprisingly, the Groundspeak UK reviewers are supportive of GAGB and vice versa: motivations and common interests are very closely aligned. In fact you might have difficulty spotting the difference. Does that mean it's an unhealthy relationship? Not at all! :cheers:

But let's take a step back. What about the other listing sites, especially Terracaching where peer review is the way in which caches are considered or your personal web site where you can list a cache without any review whatsoever, or Navicache, where the review criteria are a mystery? (to me anyway )

The bottom line is that cachers need to be responsible, both for reasons of public safety and the common good of the hobby. In essence, everyone needs to be a reviewer, and critique their own caches before listing them. On Terracaching, the peer reviewers need to critique caches as well.

In UK it makes perfect sense to use the GAGB guidelines since there's nothing else of comparable quality with a comparable amount of experience incorporated into it. The result, in terms of suitability of caches published, should be broadly similar to Groundspeak. In my experience to date, this holds true. I have not placed or found a single Terracache or Navicache that would be an unacceptable hide on Groundspeak.

So we've just handled Terracaching and Navicache, but if all cachers adopted this same approach, then the Groundspeak UK reviewers would probably not have so much remedial work to do and their workload would be that much the less. They handle so many grievances in reviewing, wouldn't it be fairer on them if cachers critiqued and reviewed their own caches first? :cheers:

Aside from those who are strongly in favour or strongly opposed to GAGB, there's the vast middle ground. Let's face it, guidelines, codes of conduct, landowner agreements....they're all pretty boring. So once these aspects have been understood and taken on board, even GAGB's silent supporters have little reason to come back to the site.

Essentially it means that however well intentioned, it's difficult for GAGB to generate and retain enduring interest from the UK caching community, so long as it concentrates on these dull but important topics. :wacko:

I'd figured that out by the time I stood for election to the committee. I also figured that GAGB could become a vibrant community if it expanded its scope to do much more and became more like broadly similar organisations like the Ramblers Association. I know this vision is shared by other cachers and they tend to be passionate about GAGB, because they appreciate the value it would have.:wub:

However, there's no way the GAGB committee could or should be doing all this, so I hope, by finding out what people would like to see GAGB doing, with the committee acting as facilitators, this broadening of scope will occur and build its own momentum. However, it had to be a gradual ramp up. The committee is not being lazy or slack and as far as I can tell, all have lives outside the committee too and thus we should not be over-stretched.

So, getting back to Kev's question: the way to get Terracaching under the GAGB umbrella is to make GAGB interesting and relevant to Terracachers. However I think we can safely drop the "Terra" and apply it to all cachers, wherever they list their caches, not least because every Terracacher I know also caches on other caching sites . Yes, even Kev :lol:

Roderick

[Icenians]

not least because every Terracacher I know also caches on other caching sites . Yes, even Kev :lol:

Oh the shame of it