Thanks Thanks:  7
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Memorials to the Deceased, change in Review Policy by GC's UK & Ireland Reviewers

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Exclamation Memorials to the Deceased, change in Review Policy by GC's UK & Ireland Reviewers

    After considerable discussion between the UK & Ireland Reviewers in regards to concerns being raised by a number of community members, over Physical Containers placed on or near to War Memorials or Memorials to the Deceased.

    We now moving forward require Proof of Permission, where a war memorial or other memorial to the dead is the focal point of a clearly defined precinct, plaza, memorial garden or like surrounding area. Physical caches or physical cache stages placed within that surrounding area require specific written permission of the relevant custodial authority

    Definition of the "Surrounding Area

    Any area specifically set aside for the Memorial, which is clearly defined and usually forming a Remembrance Garden/Area. So the area surrounding a War Memorial in a Town Square where a War Memorial is located would not fall within that definition. A example being the Cenotaph in London, which normally has traffic passing on either side of it.

    This approach to Reviewing Caches located within the Precinct of Memorials to the Deceased,is exactly the same as for Church Yard/Cemeteries which has been in place for 2.25 years within the UK.

    Caches in Such locations Published before the Date of this post have been Grandfathered In, subject to the usual rider. That of any Update of Coordinates, Is considered to have broken the Grandfathered In clause, and the new location if within the Precinct will then require Written Permission.

    To avoid any confusion, We are NOT BANNING caches located within the Precincts of Memorial to the Deceased. Simply moving to a Proof of Permission to Publish


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

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Can we ask why?

    Some members have raised concern, well why not use the forum to gain a bigger picture?

    I really do feel this needs an elaboration on the reasons, I therefore will not be thanking my mate Deci for this post!

    I can see the point that these are sensitive areas, on the other hand I do see the point of taking people to them with consideration by the owner and finders for the sensitivity of these places.

    It's not the new requirement that bothers me so much as the way this is done without consultation of the broader community.

    I will also say I had the same concerns regarding the churchyard restriction and the way we (the GAGB) were "requested" (dictated to) that we should change our guidelines to suit a reviewers decision which we were not party to.

    I will therefore not be "Thanking" for the OP.
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 10th November 2010 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Elaboration

  3. #3
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    I can see an increasing need for restrictions to be placed upon people placing caches, more people will mean more problems, simple statistics prove that.

    The issue the reviewers have , I'm sure, is that they are unpaid and have better things to do than constantly argue and negotiate each and every cache in this sort of location and the locations of churches etc.
    So I can understand the need for this new restriction but I would also say that has this been discussed online in the forums? or is it coming from nowhere as a surprise?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    No discussion and yes I agree there should be some sort of control. I am sure if it had been discussed the action taken would be the one the majority went with.

    Two minutes to post a forum thread or poll seeking opinions is obviously too much like hard work.


    All the phone calls to the GAGB come to me. I receive one or two complaints about cache placements a month. Not a single call about these (opens the flood gates).
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 10th November 2010 at 07:44 PM.

  5. #5
    Simply Paul Guest

    Default

    While I understand the sensitivity of caching near a war memorial (at least those of the 20th century. I don't think people are so worried about earlier conflicts..?), in my experience folk are far more upset by caches on dog mess bins and the public more concerned by caches near children's playgrounds. Can I ask if these locations are under 'blanket proof of permission required' review too? If not I suggest they're looked into...

    On a similar note, I've used a drain beside a memorial to the fallen of the Battle of Chalgrove, which took place early in the Civil War (1642), to hide a cache in the past (It's since been archived) - In the picture below would the whole green (actually a triangular road junction island) be classed as the memorial, only the area within the fence (in which case would a micro on the fence be ok or not) or is the Civil War long enough ago not to be an issue - assuming there was no fence and a handy gap below the monument? (There isn't, but there could be.)



    Not trying to cause trouble, just looking for extra clarity. Thank you.

  6. #6

    Thumbs down

    With many younger caches out there, it is a shame that the proof of permission on caches at memorials has been put in place. Although it is quite right that proof is obtained for parks and other areas, I do feel that a war memorial is a public place. I accept that they are sensitive areas, however, a cache may be the only time that a young cacher may visit such a place. Too often war memorials are seen as just that funny little statue thing with some names on. A caching visitor may just read the names and have a few minutes to ponder and remember just what those men and women did for this country. I am sure that cachers are not going to cause any problems whilst visiting such a site, unlike those lager/vodka soaked youngsters who use them as gathering areas to drink/smoke and generally cause a nuisance.
    Last edited by Jacaru; 10th November 2010 at 08:29 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Mendips, Somerset
    Posts
    2,769

    Default

    They could be set up as multi or puzzle caches with a decent size cache container slightly further away.

    That way people are more likely to spend a few minutes there and actually read the memorial .... rather than just grab a micro/nano and dash off.

    And also prevents an awkward search under prying eyes in a public area.
    GAGB member since 2005
    GAGB Committee member 2010 to 2016 (Chair 2012 to 2015)
    UK Mega Event Chairman 2009 (Weston-super-Mare)


  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    563

    Default

    One of my caches is a multi which starts at a war memorial where details have to be obtained to work out the cache location - down a footpath nearby.

    I did it that way precisley because of the concerns mentioned above.

    It's good to get folk to pause and ponder memorials, but we don't really want cachers climbing all over them and pulling them to bits.

    If all cache hiders and finders could be trusted to use their common sense these "rules" wouldn't be needed, unfortunately there are some senseless fools out there.

    Grabs tin hat .......................

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by border caz View Post
    ...
    It's good to get folk to pause and ponder memorials, but we don't really want cachers climbing all over them and pulling them to bits.

    If all cache hiders and finders could be trusted to use their common sense these "rules" wouldn't be needed, unfortunately there are some senseless fools out there.
    ...
    OK, but as we don't know what prompted this new rule we're only speculating as to whether it's sensible and proportionate or not. The only hard evidence is that Mongoose doesn't get a significant number of complaints about such caches. Which just makes it all the more mysterious.

    Hopefully Groundspeak will be reviewing their policy after a certain period, to see whether it has led to fewer incidents (of the type we're not told about), and also whether it has discouraged cache placements at these sites (which isn't the desired effect - it's supposed to be merely about proof of permission).

    I'm not a fan of this type of rule. Problems should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, although I can see that if the GAGB has been overwhelmed with complaints about a certain type of caching incident then a general rule can be justified.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Since all caches need permission of the landowner, I don't see what the problem is obtaining written permission.

    Is it a case of the cachers who are complaining don't bother seeking permission?

    Wouldn't it be simpler to insist on written permission for every cache placed? The blanket permissions published on this site should be acceptable where appropriate, unless otherwise stated.
    Paved Roads: Another fine example of unnecessary Government spending!

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ivanidea View Post
    Since all caches need permission of the landowner, I don't see what the problem is obtaining written permission.

    Is it a case of the cachers who are complaining don't bother seeking permission?

    Wouldn't it be simpler to insist on written permission for every cache placed? The blanket permissions published on this site should be acceptable where appropriate, unless otherwise stated.
    On that general point, in the real world not all caches need permission, nor is it always practical to obtain written permission for a cache.

    Also, the fact that you have obtained permission doesn't mean that the cache is still in place "with permission" a year later; the land might have been sold in the meantime, or the sympathetic staff moved on. Not surprisingly, details of geocaches on the land aren't exactly top of the list when files are handed over (if they are handed over at all). All it proves is that on the day you applied, the person you asked said yes.

    There are many levels of permission required anyway, and sometimes more than one body has to be approached (e.g. the landowner and the government agency overseeing land use). Sometimes you can see that there's little point in asking; should a problem arise you can simply remove the container from under its stone beneath the stile. If the landowner spots the cache on geocaching.com and gets up in arms about not being asked, it can be gone before his e-mail gets through.

    A reviewer, however, cannot judge what level of permission is appropriate. In the latter case; from the map, the cache could be hidden ten yards away from the stile in a nature reserve and require a climb over a fence. So we're allowed to declare that "adequate permission" has been obtained, and we can judge what is "adequate".

    Having said that, we do seem to be moving towards a requirement of written permission for all caches, and an assumption that caches are pretty much permanent.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I am probably being a little over protective of the GAGB guidelines.

    The guidelines are there for other listing sites as well as Groundspeak. I just feel that local changes that will affect local users should have an opportunity for discussion.

Posting Permissions

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