Thanks Thanks:  27
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 144

Thread: GAGB Guideline not met, cache denied?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default GAGB Guideline not met, cache denied?

    I'm confused - although it doesn't take much

    I've had a cache denied because:

    Log Date: 9/8/2011
    Hi

    I'm just reviewing your cache which is fine however your cache is placed in an urban area (overlooked by the farmhouse) and due to a major security alert with a cache in a similar location a new guideline has been brought in by the Geocaching Association of Great Britain (GAGB) to cover caches in such locations so as to minimise the chance of more security alerts, particularly where there is a likelihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.
    When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly. Your cache should be clearly labelled as a geocache with the cache GC number if it is large enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache. You may view the GAGB guidelines here https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geoc...he-guidelines/

    I am temporarily disabling your cache so you can confirm it meets this guideline. When you're ready for me to review the cache again either enable it from the cache page (Navigation box on the top right) and add any information or questions in the comments box or if you are editing the cache tick the box 'Yes this listing is active' and add any information in the 'Note to reviewer' box at the bottom. This will bring it back to the top of the queue for review.

    Regards
    Now it's in the middle of the wilderness. There's one farmhouse nearby but besides that there's nothing. It's certainly not an urban area - the nearest village is about 2km's away.

    Wikipedia says the definition of urban is:

    An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets.
    Also some people on another forum tell me the GAGB guildelines are.....guildelines, not rules governing the placement of caches.

    Do they *have* to be adhered to? I cannot find anything in the GC.com terms that tell me I must follow them, as it happens I'd read them, but didn't realise they formed part of the rules??

    There is point 3 below

    Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

    1.Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.
    2.A geocache may be disabled or archived.
    3.Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement.
    4.Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.
    I guess that means GAGB? What other local organisations must I follow the guildelines of? I assume there are local geocaching clubs to me, forums etc, do they make stipulations also, where do I find a list of ALL my local rules?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    The guidlines are just that and not rules. I would suggest that you contact the relevant reviewer and explain just that to him/her. It might also be an idea to explain to him/her the location settings and the fact that there are very few buildings there.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    The guidelines are not rules. If a reviewer chooses to treat them as rules that is down to their conscience.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Exclamation

    As stated the cache location is overlooked by the Farmhouse in fact it's right in front of it. And whilst there is not Google Street View for that location, looking at the location on Google Satellite, it looks very close to if not directly opposite a Gateway to the property.

    Groundspeak's UK Reviewers have used the GAGB Guidelines as Local Guidelines since before I became a Reviewer. And as I've been a Reviewer for just over 5 years (and I'm currently the longest serving UK Reviewer) and the people who recruited me, had used the GAGB Guidelines from when they became Reviewers (around 2003) . The GAGB Guidelines have been used as Local Guidelines for around 8 years.

    Also I noticed that you have not mentioned Landowner Permission in your post. Yet you have confirmed in that post that you have read GC's Cache Placement Guidelines.

    You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.
    Also will you please explain why you felt a need to immediately discuss a unpublished cache in a Public forum, without even giving the Reviewer a chance to even work with you over this cache placement? Because you did not even give the reviewer any chance to discuss this with you, before posting a copy of the Reviewer note here.

    One of the roles of GC's Reviewers is to work with Cache Owners to get their cache submissions published. To do that, they have to be given the chance to work with the cache owner.

    Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    errr I came here for some help? And I'm now more confused, I've got some people saying they're only guidelines yet you're saying the reviewers use them as rule.

    I just want some clarification of this that's all.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I have to say even as a committee member of the GAGB ia m confused. We list guidelines and yet it seems they are being treated as rules?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    errr I came here for some help? And I'm now more confused, I've got some people saying they're only guidelines yet you're saying the reviewers use them as rule.

    I just want some clarification of this that's all.

    These are guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules, which gives the reviewers some room for movement when applying them, if they wish and they think it's appropriate. While your proposed cache isn't in an 'urban' environment it seems to be clearly overlooked by a property, and in fact a cacher hanging round outside a house in the middle of nowhere could potentially attract a lot more suspicion than a cacher hanging around in the middle of a city centre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    Also will you please explain why you felt a need to immediately discuss a unpublished cache in a Public forum, without even giving the Reviewer a chance to even work with you over this cache placement?
    Personally I don't think the OP has done anything wrong. [S]He's been told the cache contravenes the GAGB guidelines and has then come to the GAGB for advice, I don't see a problem with them clarifying the situation before approaching the reviewer to query the rejection.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Thanks for the feedback, I live half the year in the UK and half in Florida. How do I know about any local Florida rules (or guidelines?!) that I must follow whilst I'm there? We've not cached in Florida yet, we're still relative newbies!

    Is there a list of all the areas of the world, and all the local clubs that make extra local rules?

    Also would there be any more local rules that must be adhered to? For instance county or city wide besides the GAGB?

    Thanks guys
    Last edited by Sven; 10th September 2011 at 09:45 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Also would there be any more local rules that must be adhered to? For instance county or city wide besides the GAGB?
    It can be a bit confusing, on the whole the additional guidelines for the UK are basically enshrined in the GAGB guidelines, but there are other rules set by landowners such as the Forestry Commission, and Woodland Trust where additional rules are in place but you'd find out about those when applying to the landowner for permission (many of these can also be found under the individual land owner agreements at https://www.gagb.org.uk/land-agreements.php )

    There are also local rules in the US, such as not placing caches near railway lines, but I wouldn't know where to go to find them.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?

    My cache rough location is here which as I said isn't "urban" at all. I'm not sure how the reviewer can say because of the recent Wetherby incident they're requiring all caches have a "clear and unambiguous clue" yet the same reviewer published this cache yesterday and there is no clear clue at all, and that's in the middle of an urban street!?


  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    We(s)t Cumbria
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?

    My cache rough location is here which as I said isn't "urban" at all. I'm not sure how the reviewer can say because of the recent Wetherby incident they're requiring all caches have a "clear and unambiguous clue" yet the same reviewer published this cache yesterday and there is no clear clue at all, and that's in the middle of an urban street!?

    Have you asked the reviewer?

    Personally I can't see anything wrong with the cache. There's something that matches the clue clearly visible on Google Street View extremely close to the coordinates.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post

    Groundspeak's UK Reviewers have used the GAGB Guidelines as Local Guidelines since before I became a Reviewer. And as I've been a Reviewer for just over 5 years (and I'm currently the longest serving UK Reviewer) and the people who recruited me, had used the GAGB Guidelines from when they became Reviewers (around 2003) . The GAGB Guidelines have been used as Local Guidelines for around 8 years.


    Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com


    Nor strictly true Dave, if you remember one of my big arguments with Michael LaPaglia (which contributed largely to my resignation) was his insistance that there were no such things as UK specific guidelines and GSP guidlelines and only GSP guidelines had to be followed. This was during a protracted and sometimes quite heated discussion about DSW caches.

    One of the things that has been a pleasant and refreshing surprise (but only in some ways) in recent months has been the seeming acceptance of GSP that the UK reviewers can now create their own rules (as they are not and never have been really simply guidelines have they ?)

    Not intending any criticism here but wanting to set the record straight.

    Cheers,:cheers:

    DaveD

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    I just wanted to clarify that GAGB has guidelines and it's up to the Reviewers of listing sites on how these should be applied to individual caches.


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Someone on another forum recons I've ended up on the "reviewers blacklist" whatever that is?
    I'd be interested in hearing His explanation about a "reviewers blacklist", caches are Reviewed according to the Guidelines the GC ones, and the GAGB ones which we use as Local Guidelines.

    Any time we mistreat a member in any way, that person is welcome to make a Official Complaint to Groundspeak. Who will fairly investigate the complaint and take any appropriate action they deem appropriate. From a Warning to the Final and Ultimate Sanction of Removal as a Groundspeak Volunteer.

    If anyone wishes to doubt the above statement, someone** made a Official Complaint against me*, to Groundspeak. After they had investigated, I received a "Official Warning" off Groundspeak. So Groundspeak's Reviewers are held to a high standard at all times.

    Maybe the Admins of the Other Listing Sites, would care to explain how their held accountable.


    Deci

    *within the last 12 months
    **The persons Identity remains confidential between that person and Groundspeak.
    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

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    50

    Default

    I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.

    I know that some people have not had caches published for weeks, whilst other have been placed and published within that week! It can be very irritating for those involved.

    I am sure there is no official blacklist, but certainly reviewers still are real people and therefore have human opinions and may let them clout their judgement form time to time. We all do it! I think that is all the comment meant.
    Adam Robbins (Bobbinz)

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    50

    Default

    I know a lot of local cachers have quite strong views on others, and I to a certain degree reviewers could be the same
    Adam Robbins (Bobbinz)

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Deci, You seem way to quick to jump on this, as mentioned before he was referenced to the GAGB guidlines and was only asking for advice. Why have you been so adversarial in your comments from the off and tried to high-jack this thread? From your tone it made me think there is more to it.

    I suppose I am black listed now as well?

    Incidental what have other listing sites got to do with this are you saying "there can be only one" Mr Mccloud??

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    I'd be interested in hearing His explanation about a "reviewers blacklist", caches are Reviewed according to the Guidelines the GC ones, and the GAGB ones which we use as Local Guidelines.
    A human run system is never infallible. Humans have feelings, they have prejudices and agendas.

    Since I dared question her authority it seems my caches now take days rather than hours to be authorised (yet tens of others sail through at regular intervals) : and I seem to get denied for the most jobworthy of reasons

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbinz View Post
    I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.

    I know that some people have not had caches published for weeks, whilst other have been placed and published within that week! It can be very irritating for those involved.

    I am sure there is no official blacklist, but certainly reviewers still are real people and therefore have human opinions and may let them clout their judgement form time to time. We all do it! I think that is all the comment meant.
    As someone whose Reviewed caches in East Midlands, I'd be interested to hear from those who have had to wait weeks to get a cache actioned. The only time I can think of a cache taking over a week to action is when it has been taken to the rest of the UK Reviewers for their opinion.

    And I'm sorry but I do know exactly who Sven&Cup was referring to in regards to a Reviewer Black list, and exactly what as well. He's someone who is highly experienced not only as a Geocacher, but also in Geocaching Politics. He's someone who has the email address of one of Groundspeak's Founders (Owners), who would heavily advice anyone waiting weeks to get a cache published, to make a Formal Complaint to Groundspeak.

    Sven&Cup your cache happens to be one that was referred to the rest of the UK Reviewers for their impute (and before anyone claims we are ganging up on him, caches get referred every day by all of us. We work very closely as a team)

    Lord Boogie Sven&Cup was simply asked to confirm that his cache met the Urban Guidelines, which states

    6 Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.
    When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.
    Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache
    .

    The Bold is Mine, but is exactly what th Reviewer was referring to. Sven&Cup did not even attempt to discuss things with the Reviewer. Instead decided to post on 2 separate forums. So their was a breakdown of communication between the cache owner and Reviewer. Before there was even any attempt to resolve things.

    As for other Cache Listings. If you'd taken the care to properly read my Post. You would have read the way Reviewers are held to account by Groundspeak. Since I was even open to admit I received a Official Warning off Groundspeak, after a Member made a Complaint which was upheld.

    Was I wrong to as the Admins of Navicache, Terracaching, Opencaching.org,uk and also Garmins Opencaching.com how they are held to account when a complaint is made against them? Notice I've listed 4 separate and all independent of each other Listing Sites.

    I know at least Admins for Opencaching.org.uk are Members of this forum.

    Please do not quote this post, in part or whole off this forum

    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

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    Sven&Cup did not even attempt to discuss things with the Reviewer. Instead decided to post on 2 separate forums. So their was a breakdown of communication between the cache owner and Reviewer. Before there was even any attempt to resolve things.
    Sven&Cup sent responses to the reviewer before making any forum posts.

    One might hope my confusion would be justified after it had to be explained to two committee members! How on earth is a newbie meant to interpret the redtape if its creators cannot?...

    So sorry for trying not to waste valuable reviewer time and get my questions answered by those in the know first

    It seemed wrong, it still seems wrong. I wanted a knowledgeable opinion.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Woah boy. Calm down and take a minute. Surely you can not take exception to new geocacher asking advice about guidelines from the people who wrote them?

    Great you know people, so do I but as my wife reminds me does it mean I am right?

    This is getting out of hand, I think you are way too defensive, don't take it bad because people don't act the way you want them.

    Lets all chill out and stick to the point.

    GAGB guidelines are now rules can this be confirmed by GS (Deci as you are the longest serving reviewer at the moment your call)

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    I think the problem here is the usual in many walks of life, give people a little authority and they like to use it.

    Do you think it is in the spirit of the rules to deny a cache because it mentions the word "tupperware"?

    I had one denied as it was clearly a "commercial advertisement" for tupperware!

    *GASP*

    What about mentioning a massive landmark like Ikea?

    *GASP*

    I understand why the rule is there, to prevent spam....

    Do you think saying "the cache is in a tupperware container" is an advert? No of course not. Then it falls into the jobsworth category.

    Sure, it might be the LETTER of the law but it's not the SPIRIT of the law.

    What about denying a cache because I mentioned in a forum that I spend a lot of time out of the country?

    I clarified that I had someone in place for this scenario when I'm not here...

    So what about RE-denying the cache until I told the reviewer exactly who this person was?


    Spirit vs Letter.

    I'd say the letter is what might kill geocaching for some people, it killed it for me. I wont be submitting anymore caches for review in the East Midlands.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Do you think it is in the spirit of the rules to deny a cache because it mentions the word "tupperware"?

    I had one denied as it was clearly a "commercial advertisement" for tupperware!

    *GASP*

    What about mentioning a massive landmark like Ikea?

    *GASP*

    I understand why the rule is there, to prevent spam....

    Do you think saying "the cache is in a tupperware container" is an advert? No of course not. Then it falls into the jobsworth category.
    I believe that it's GS who have very firm rules the commercial aspect and I don't think the reviewers have much room to manoeuvre on it and TBH I think it's the only way; if there's a moveable line then everyone will have their own idea of what can be mentioned and what can't and there would be perpetual arguments about it. With an absolute no mentioning of commercial products it's clear to everyone where the line is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    Sure, it might be the LETTER of the law but it's not the SPIRIT of the law.

    What about denying a cache because I mentioned in a forum that I spend a lot of time out of the country?

    I clarified that I had someone in place for this scenario when I'm not here...

    So what about RE-denying the cache until I told the reviewer exactly who this person was?
    Again I think this is a GS rule, which was brought in to stop people chucking caches down where they weren't going to be maintained, and seems reasonable to me.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    OK, some thoughts.

    This may not have been the best guideline to use. It appears not to be urban. Of the top of my head and without the time to re read the GS guidelines (they do describe them as requirements, GAGB issues guidelines not requirements) I am sure there will be something about not placing a cache where it may cause distress.

    Over the last month I have had 4 contacts from landowners (rural) complaining about caches that infringe on their privacy and/or the safe working of their land. One which also blocked access to their farm buildings by people parking on their drive.

    Only one of these had a positive outcome with future support from the landowner.

    I know this cost me both time and money to resolve it also cost reviewers time.

    I am sure that all the reviewers are trying to do is prevent this sort of situation.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I know that reviewers can't be expected to be perfect all the time, particularly when trying to fit in reviewing around a full-time job. I'm grateful that people volunteer for this unattractive but useful task.

    But in this case, assuming that what Sven tells us us accurate and that the reviewer had the best of intentions, the mistake was that the reviewer did not list all the queries straight away after the first review; and make it quite clear what level of detail was required in the answers.

    Sven was annoyed that after giving the reviewer the answer the listing was refused and another question asked. Perhaps this would be tolerable on one occasion, but I'd have thought that once the answer was given any further questions should have been listed along with the required detail level of answer.

    For instance, if a reviewer has inside knowledge that you spend a lot of your time outside the area, then if he/she is concerned about cache maintenance the question should be whether you have a maintenance plan for when you're away. If the answer is "yes" then no further question is necessary; I don't see why the reviewer would then refuse the listing again and ask for the name of the person who is going to maintain it. After all, they can't check whether the name you give is authentic.

    Then once the name has been given, it would be reasonable to expect the listing to go ahead, not to be refused again on the basis that you now need to reconfirm that permission has been granted. And if you reconfirm this, you'd then expect the listing to go ahead...and on it goes.

    So in this case, the initial submission might have been refused; but the reviewer should have listed all the requirements in detail. Including that it's not good enough to submit a cache and say that you have a maintenance plan, you also have to give details of how this will work and who is covering. And that it's no good just saying that permission has been granted; the reviewer needs to know by whom exactly, along with a contact phone number. And also the reason that this particular cache has the extra requirements over and above the usual.

    I emphasise that I'm not having a go at the respected reviewer in this case; I'm just assuming that mistakes were made (rather than that there's a campaign to drive Sven out of the sport), and that discussing them will help avoid this sort of thing from happening again.

  26. #26
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    GAGB guidelines are now rules can this be confirmed by GS (Deci as you are the longest serving reviewer at the moment your call)
    I find it very hard to see how GAGB guidelines can be applied to anyone other than GAGB members. If you don't sign up to the GAGB you cannot be required to comply with their guidelines.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    I find it very hard to see how GAGB guidelines can be applied to anyone other than GAGB members. If you don't sign up to the GAGB you cannot be required to comply with their guidelines.
    That's a easy one to answer for yourself by going and reading the groundspeak guidelines which points out that there may be additional local guidelines which the reviewer may require you to meet. If you want to list on their site you need to meet the requirements.

    However as has been repeated several times, the GAGB produces guidelines not rules, not requirements.

    From Groundspeaks getting started guide.....

    Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements
    Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.
    A geocache may be disabled or archived.
    Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement.
    Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

    https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 13th September 2011 at 12:08 PM. Reason: To add link

  28. #28
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    That's a easy one to answer for yourself by going and reading the groundspeak guidelines which points out that there may be additional local guidelines which the reviewer may require you to meet. If you want to list on their site you need to meet the requirements.
    I find it rather hard to believe that this was intended to create a situation where a few cachers set up an association and create guidelines that are imposed upon every other cacher in the country.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    That's a question for groundspeak not us.

    Though I guess seeing as the reviewers from groundspeak contribute to them.........

    Oh and some of the guidelines on there are ones which they requested, like the graveyard and memorial guidelines.

    However this is about a specific situation not about the GAGB.
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 13th September 2011 at 12:47 PM. Reason: example

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    However this is about a specific situation not about the GAGB.
    I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

    It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

    It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.
    Where pray tell have we (the committee) disagreed, if some of the reviewers from one listing site (there are several you know) choose to treat them as rules that is between them and their listing site.

    Could you explain who the majority of cachers you refer to is. I only see a few people on here discussing this.
    Last edited by Mongoose39uk; 13th September 2011 at 05:35 PM.

  32. #32
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Could you explain who the majority of cachers you refer to is. I only see a few people on here discussing this.
    His Lordship of the Boogie was suggesting that the GAGB aim to represent the majority of cachers in the UK, that's quite a curious if not amusing response

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    I disagree, as it has become apparent the GAGB guidelines are now RULES and not optional. I ask that this is clarified by a GS representative using this thread primarily.

    It is in GAGB's interest to help resolve this because otherwise GAGB could be brought into disrepute. There appears to be a situation where the committee members are not in agreement as to the status of guidelines vs rules also. It further appears that the reviewers are cherry picking the guidelines as and when (maybe not in this case) and not applying with fairness and equity. GAGB should be standing up for the majority of cachers you claim to represent and take steps to ensure the good name is not being abused.

    I think you're confusing the two separate organisations.

    GAGB publish guidelines, if GS choose to adopt those guidelines as hard rules then that's up to GS and not the GAGB. But then you say the reviewers appear to be cherry picking the rules, could this not be alternatively described as being flexible in applying the guidelines? (IMHO there's no scope for flexibility in rules but flexibility is inherent in the term guideline).

    If you want something clarified by a GS representative then you ought to be asking GS direct via their forum, and not expecting them to jump in here (even though we have had a GS reviewer participate on this thread).

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martybartfast View Post
    But then you say the reviewers appear to be cherry picking the rules, could this not be alternatively described as being flexible in applying the guidelines? (IMHO there's no scope for flexibility in rules but flexibility is inherent in the term guideline).
    You miss the point, exactly how are we (hiders of caches) supposed to know what the rules are if they keep changing them? Or one week decide that one guideline does not meet with their agenda? I assume you don't disagree that we should expect to be treated equally. I had, wrongly it seems, assumed that GAGB was representing the geocaching community. I also assume you do not disagree that for a listing site to use and discard the guidelines at whim and use the GAGB name as the whipping boy is wrong?

    Let me just say this, I believe that the reviewers of all listing sites do an amazing job that helps to maintain standards. I had previously believed that the GAGB represented the geocaching community. I am doubting these two statements will remain unchanged.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    You miss the point, exactly how are we (hiders of caches) supposed to know what the rules are if they keep changing them? Or one week decide that one guideline does not meet with their agenda? I assume you don't disagree that we should expect to be treated equally. I had, wrongly it seems, assumed that GAGB was representing the geocaching community. I also assume you do not disagree that for a listing site to use and discard the guidelines at whim and use the GAGB name as the whipping boy is wrong?

    Let me just say this, I believe that the reviewers of all listing sites do an amazing job that helps to maintain standards. I had previously believed that the GAGB represented the geocaching community. I am doubting these two statements will remain unchanged.
    I believe it needs more clarification from the reviewers, however that does not make me or you the majority of cachers.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    I believe it needs more clarification from the reviewers,
    I am glad you agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    however that does not make me or you the majority of cachers.
    I am not claiming to be the majority, nor am I saying you are. I am saying that GAGB represents the community. Guidelines being randomly applied as rules could affect the majority, minority or a single cacher; all of those "sets" belong to the community GAGB is supposed to represent. .

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    You have a point of view, so do thousands of others they may not agree with you.

    Please get evidence of a majority view before trying to tell me what to do.


    I am not going to waste any more time on you.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    You have a point of view, so do thousands of others they may not agree with you.

    Please get evidence of a majority view before trying to tell me what to do.


    I am not going to waste any more time on you.
    I think, with respect, you're possibly missing his/her point.

    As they say "GAGB represents the community".

    Community==majority.

    At least, that's how I read it....

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    With respect, I am talking about the majority. Please try reading what I have said.

    I don't see a majority of people raising this as an issue.

    That does not however mean that I have not raised the issue elsewhere.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I don't see this as an issue of whether or not Groundspeak are using GAGB guidelines as rules. So the thread is going off-topic.

    Even if the first listing refusal was on the basis that the cache was subject to the GAGB Urban Cache guidelines, the issue was about why the cache was repeatedly refused, and details of permission and maintenance were later required when normally they aren't. And why they weren't required at first but were later insisted on.

    As far as I can see it's about a particular case, not about GAGB guidelines. Although there is also an implied question about whether certain cachers' submissions are subject to "special treatment".

    It looks like questions have been asked about this by the GAGB, and I would encourage their arbitration.

  41. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    50

    Default

    I think Happy Humphrey has hit it dead on there, well said.
    Adam Robbins (Bobbinz)

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    I am not going to waste any more time on you.
    I am glad, you feel confident there is no issue. I am sure other members of GAGB are also pleased that any issue they raise must first be ratified before the GAGB committee can waste time on them.

    With out an open debate though, how else would we know others have the same issues?

    Do you have some sort of physic poll that prioritises peoples thoughts on issues and thus rate them as important or not?

    Do the GAGB represent the geocaching community or play lapdog to another geocaching entity?

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Enough with the attacks already ! - How many more time does it have to be re-iterated - GUIDELINES not RULES Follow or not. What Reviewers do is down to them NOT GAGB
    As one of the "Un-elected", self seeking, grandiose, GS lackeys to quote someone whom I have never met and probably don't now wish to, I am tired of the attacks on an organisation set up to SUPPORT caching.
    Elections are coming and if you are a member please vote for someone you wish to see on the committee - I will be more than happy to stand down for a "properly" elected member (not a "friend" of one of the other committee members - as has also been stated on other sites) I am sad that the great organisation which I joined, and the committee which I was honoured to join is under such constant and nasty attacks. I am for discussion, debate and open decisions. I am probably in a minority that still believes in honesty, decency and serving the community as best I can. More fool me - So get voting and get the committee you deserve.
    THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE GAGB, OR ITS COMMITTE IN ANY WAY - DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT !
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  44. #44

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    I am glad, you feel confident there is no issue. I am sure other members of GAGB are also pleased that any issue they raise must first be ratified before the GAGB committee can waste time on them.

    With out an open debate though, how else would we know others have the same issues?

    Do you have some sort of physic poll that prioritises peoples thoughts on issues and thus rate them as important or not?

    Do the GAGB represent the geocaching community or play lapdog to another geocaching entity?
    Pleas e read what I wrote, I am spending time on the issue, just not you personally.

  45. #45
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    Enough with the attacks already ! - How many more time does it have to be re-iterated - GUIDELINES not RULES Follow or not. What Reviewers do is down to them NOT GAGB
    As one of the "Un-elected", self seeking, grandiose, GS lackeys to quote someone whom I have never met and probably don't now wish to, I am tired of the attacks on an organisation set up to SUPPORT caching.
    Elections are coming and if you are a member please vote for someone you wish to see on the committee - I will be more than happy to stand down for a "properly" elected member (not a "friend" of one of the other committee members - as has also been stated on other sites) I am sad that the great organisation which I joined, and the committee which I was honoured to join is under such constant and nasty attacks. I am for discussion, debate and open decisions. I am probably in a minority that still believes in honesty, decency and serving the community as best I can. More fool me - So get voting and get the committee you deserve.
    THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE GAGB, OR ITS COMMITTE IN ANY WAY - DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT !
    When organisations create unecessary extra guidelines there will always be a risk that they get used as rules by people who should know better. I still question whether we need UK specific guidelines.

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    After a long discussion with a groundspeak reviewer.

    There would appear to be no definitive answer.

    Some of the guidelines are treated as requirements

    It would appear that ones where specific landowner permission is required (please see landowner database), then a level of evidence is required.

    Dry stone walls, not knowingly published

    Caches in plastic bags, not knowingly published.

    Other guidelines are used as guidelines, the emphasis being on trying to publish the cache while trying to ensure that the cache does not cause distress to others.

    As for the OP's concerns of being on a blacklist. If you have concerns of this nature you can complain to groundspeak if you wish. If you do not wish to do this you can discuss it with the reviewer. If for whatever reason you do not wish to deal directly with the reviewer I am sure that either I or another member of the committee would be prepared to help. We would need your permission, we would then need to contact the reviewer for their permission as obviously we would need to see both sides of any correspondence.

    I have spoken to Deceangi regarding this type of mediation, he personally has no objections if the GAGB act as a mediator on a members behalf. As they are fullfilling one of the core roles of the GAGB. By representing the member

  47. #47
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbinz View Post
    I think what was meant by the 'blacklist' comment is just an observation that some cachers do have their caches published right away with little or no quibble whilst others have problems thrown at them wherever possible.
    And of course that would have nothing to do with some cache owners studying the guidelines and taking time with their hides and listings to make sure they comply - or have provided any additional info they might feel will help to the reviewer when they hit the submit button, would it???

  48. #48
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    After a long discussion with a groundspeak reviewer.

    There would appear to be no definitive answer.

    Some of the guidelines are treated as requirements

    It would appear that ones where specific landowner permission is required (please see landowner database), then a level of evidence is required.

    Dry stone walls, not knowingly published

    Caches in plastic bags, not knowingly published.

    Other guidelines are used as guidelines, the emphasis being on trying to publish the cache while trying to ensure that the cache does not cause distress to others.

    As for the OP's concerns of being on a blacklist. If you have concerns of this nature you can complain to groundspeak if you wish. If you do not wish to do this you can discuss it with the reviewer. If for whatever reason you do not wish to deal directly with the reviewer I am sure that either I or another member of the committee would be prepared to help. We would need your permission, we would then need to contact the reviewer for their permission as obviously we would need to see both sides of any correspondence.

    I have spoken to Deceangi regarding this type of mediation, he personally has no objections if the GAGB act as a mediator on a members behalf. As they are fullfilling one of the core roles of the GAGB. By representing the member
    Thanks for an informative post.

    With regards to the blacklisting allegations I am personally aware of 4-5 incidents, however I will get the blessing of the cachers concerned before posting details. No instances warrant rule breaks on the reviewers part but they do have similarities pulling up many questions to a cacher before publishing similar to Sven's situation. There are also similar incidents where caches of individuals have been systematically held back.

    Moving on to UK Reviewers treating selected guidelines as rules I would think a statement from Groundspeak would be appropriate. Albeit on a voluntary basis reviewers are employed by a profit making company and are therefore working under their supervision.

    Maybe the GAGB could request a statement from Groundspeak? if not I'd happy to send them a note.

    No so long back Groundspeak's guidelines clearly stated something about complying with rules set down local organisations, this has since been removed.

    The following is now quoted as the reason GAGB guidelines are implemented by reviewers.
    "Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement."

    This line clearly deals with any local legal issues, unless GAGB committee members are MPs I fail to see how this can a valid reason. Regulations and laws are by no means guidelines.

    A quick question, why is it that only one reviewer feels the need to post on this topic? The UK has quite a few reviewers now and to be frank you are not being represented very well.

  49. #49

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    I'll tell you why I am not responding to subject of this thread. The cache in question is being discussed on the EMCache forum as well as here. In both threads the reviewers are being of accused of bias and blacklisting cache owners. I've read all the review logs on the cache in question. I know what has been said by the cache owner and reviewer. Not all the information is being provided in either forum thread......so it appears reading it the reviewer is the only one at fault so it quickly turns into a 'reviewer bashing' rant. If ALL the information was correctly provided about the cache I'd comment. But until then I won't. It's between the cache owner and the reviewers. However if the cache owner gives me their permission by email I will post the information about why the cache cannot at the moment be published. Then I would consider replying to the original subject of this thread.
    Please email me through my geocaching.com profile here.

    As always, any cache owner who is not happy with how their cache has been reviewed can contact Groundspeak by sending an email to appeals@geocaching.com.

    Chris
    Graculus
    Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
    UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
    Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graculus View Post
    Not all the information is being provided in either forum thread......


    What information am I not providing?

    The only thing you might not see is where my cache was denied for the "commercial advertisement" because i mentioned "tupperware". That genuinely did happen, it was just on [url=http://coord.info/GC2ZCGW]another[/ur] cache.

    If you're going to accuse me of being deceitful then provide the details I've got nothing to hide here.

Posting Permissions

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