Thanks Thanks:  8
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Phone Calls to the GAGB

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default Phone Calls to the GAGB

    After posting that I had not received a single complaint on either of the GAGB numbers about geocaches/geocachers at memorials I thought it may be helpful to give a breakdown of the calls I have received over the last year.

    15 concerns about caches. 12 of these were fairly minor and were dealt with by a quick email to the owner (mostly asking for a bit more information or for it to be moved a few feet).

    One was happy for caching on his land however no permission had been sought, the caches were off path in a area where shooting regularly occurred.

    Another was were people were not using the path and crossing a field with livestock in tit causing some concern. Not unhappy with people caching just requesting that the cache was disabled and to work with the cache owner to place in a more appropriate place.

    One rather insistent one from some horsey people (I think that's a fairly polite way of putting it) who appeared to want no one but them in the county.

    3 Enquiries about placing in SSSI
    5 Press enquiries
    6 getting started
    2 from people writing books about geocaching
    2 Landowner agreement enquiries from landowners (large)
    1 Wanting someone to take a stall at an exhibition at his Hotel
    3 Product? PR company
    5 Accidental cache finds wanting to get the damaged caches back to the owners
    2 Council gardeners wanting to make sure they had returned the cache to the correct hidey hole
    2 Drunken teens finding caches
    1 return of a cache washed away in floods some years before
    1 County Council press office wanting to promote geocaching as an activity in its public spaces over the summer

    Most cache specific enquiries lack detail and can take quite a bit of time to identify.

    The vast majority of people who had concerns over caches were very polite and helpful and in no way negative. They had a problem but were willing to work with cachers to resolve it.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    That's most interesting, a lot fewer than I expected. Clearly, Groundspeak field thousands of complaints every year - don't they pass them on to GAGB?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    The ones listed above are just the ones made by phone and do not include any made via email. I don't keep a log of the others. ( For log read scrap of paper at side of the monitor).

    The reviewers hands are tied when it comes to specifics of complaints that they receive.

  4. #4

    Default

    Is it possible to upload the drunk teenagers call? It would be good for a laugh opcorn:

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    That's most interesting, a lot fewer than I expected. Clearly, Groundspeak field thousands of complaints every year - don't they pass them on to GAGB?
    UK Caches requiring action, are passed on to the UK Reviewers to action.

    Personally if I'm given a contact email address, I always send the complainant a apology and a explanation of the action taken.

    If the complainant states that they are happy for the container to remain, I pass over the contact details to the CO and ask them to make contact to obtain formal permission.

    That seems to be the biggest issue, CO's not obtaining permission! I estimate that we could reduce the number of Archivals due to Landowner Issues and Bans by up to 70%, if CO's would just obtain Permission for their caches. Experiance shows that Landowners tend to get more negative, after they have found a cache(s) placed without their permission.

    Deci
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Mongoose might not thank me for suggesting this, but wouldn't it be better to pass on the complaint to GAGB and let them deal with it? Possibly the cache should be disabled by Groundspeak on receipt of any enquiry judged negative, and then reinstated once the issue is resolved (or archived if it can't be).

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Groundspeak's Policy is that when a Landowner contacts them requesting the Removal of a Cache, they comply with the request. By passing it over to the Local Reviewer it's seen as being less confrontational between them and the Cache Owner.

    Please Remember when a Cache Owner submits a cache for publication on Geocaching.com, they confirm that they have "adequate Permission". Once a Landowner states that the cache does not have Permission. The cache no longer meets Geocaching.com's Listing Requirements. So the Cache is Archived, there is nothing to stop the Cache Owner from contacting the Landowner and obtaining the Permission, that they should have obtained before placing it.

    By failing to Archive it, so removing it from Active Listing on Geocaching.com, Groundspeak would be ignoring the Landowners Requirements. At the end of the day, Groundspeak as a business, has to operate in the best interest of that business, that means complying with any request by a Landowner to remove a cache, by removing the Active Listing. It's then down to the Cache owner to either remove the container, or obtain permission for it. There is nothing to stop them requesting that the GAGB aids them in this process.

    Deci
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Well, on receipt of a genuine cache removal request I suggest that the reviewer continues with the policy of archiving the cache rather than disabling it. That's fine, and ensures that Groundspeak has done everything to comply (although from the landowner's point of view the cache is still physically in place).

    It just seems like a good idea to then pass on the details to the GAGB (as well as the cache owner), so that they can help resolve the situation. There's a fair chance that the cache owner is upset at the sudden archiving, particularly if he/she considers that adequate permission was in place. Or perhaps he doesn't care, or has stopped caching; in which case someone should be contacted to take over the cache (including any travellers suddenly marooned in an archived cache!). Or perhaps the landowner misunderstands the game altogether and thinks it's some sort of weekly high-tech treasure hunt event using his land as a playground. In which case some gentle re-education might be appropriate.

    But where I am coming from is that the GAGB seems to be unaware of the large number of landowner problems, as they are dealt with by Groundspeak. That can't be good.

    Groundspeak is equipped to pass on communications and to archive listings, but volunteer staff don't have the time to deal with the delicate and tricky negotiations that the GAGB is much better suited to. If a reviewer wants to take an interest in this aspect, I'm sure they'd be welcome to join the GAGB land access team!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Happy to help with any that are passed on to me.

Posting Permissions

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