Thanks Thanks:  58
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 128

Thread: Fire Hydrant Signs - consultation

  1. #1

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

    Default Fire Hydrant Signs - consultation

    Groundspeak received a complaint about a fake Fire Hydrant sign in South Wales from the local Fire Service. The Fire Service have asked that no more fake Fire Hydrant signs are put up which they consider to be a safety risk.

    We understand that Groundspeak are now not allowing fake Fire Hydrant signs in that area and we have suggested that this is added to their wiki.

    We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs so we are now running a consultation with UK cachers and any listing sites who wish to contribute and take an active part. This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

    Please post your views here.

    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 26th November 2011 at 05:15 PM. Reason: Corrected date as per Alan White's comment


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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I would fully agree Wombles.
    My father in law is a fire hydrant technician with the fire service and they take these things very seriously. It may not be completely obvious looking at a yellow square with an H on it but they save lives.
    If there is an emergency and the fire service are looking for a hydrant only to find out that it is not a real hydrant then the consequences could be fatal.

    I would fully support a ban on fake hydrants. However, I would not see an issue if a cache is hidden behind a real hydrant as long as the information on the sign is not altered in any way.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    850

    Default

    As above!
    NO fake signs, in a 'Safety situation' should be used.
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  4. Default



    I'm amazed that anybody would actually consider producing a fake sign in the first place - the implications are obvious !






    Life is too important to take seriously !

  5. #5

    Default

    I agree, it is obvious that fake hydrants should not be allowed.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    As this is a national safety issue it should be a rule rather than a guideline. I hope other organisations agree. I'm sure that all cachers can be agreed on this one
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    As this is a national safety issue it should be a rule rather than a guideline. I hope other organisations agree. I'm sure that all cachers can be agreed on this one
    +1

  8. #8
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    We understand that Groundspeak are now not allowing fake Fire Hydrant signs in that area...
    So its fine to place one outside this area hmy:hmy:hmy:hmy:


    I'm no legal eagle but I'd be surprised if creating fake signs of this nature was not already against the law.

    Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Predictable Bob View Post


    I'm amazed that anybody would actually consider producing a fake sign in the first place - the implications are obvious !

    I'm with you there, Bob.
    GAGB Member since 2009
    UK Mega West Mids Committee - Treasurer 2011 - 2013
    GAGB Committee - Treasurer 2016 -

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ve8 View Post
    So its fine to place one outside this area hmy:hmy:hmy:hmy:


    I'm no legal eagle but I'd be surprised if creating fake signs of this nature was not already against the law.

    Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.
    Agree.
    I was thinking that there must be other similar senarios that should also be included. this suggestion should hopefully cover this.

  11. #11
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    I thought that fire hydrants were some things they have in the United States: pillars on the sidewalk for the fire service to plug hoses into. I wasn't aware that we have similar things in this country and have always assumed that the yellow H signs were information for water service employees so they could find stop valves. I would hope that the fire service knows where to obtain water. I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H: surely the water mains and hydrants are mapped? I've not heard of any other fire hydrant caches and therefore I believe that this particular case is an isolated incident which requires no futher action. History shows that laws made quickly or in response to only a few incidents are rarely good laws.

    One of the reasons why I don't like GAGB is their rule-bound ethos and whenever there's an incident there's immediately a knee-jerk reaction of a new rule. In general, I'm not in favour of rules in what is supposed to be just a bit of harmless fun. I do applaud GAGB for asking first, though the reply-by date seems to have passed already. Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.

    From what I've read, the water hydrants are owned by the water company and their use is governed by licence. However, fake water hydrants are neither owned by the water company nor licensed. I haven't been able to find anything on the legality of imitating a water hydrant and unless there is such a law then the fire service can't demand that caches not use fake hydrants. Conversely, if there is such a law then there's no need for a GAGB rule.

    It seems that the concern in this case is that non-cachers may be placed at risk by firemen wasting time looking for the hydrant which is pointed to by a fake sign. Aside from my belief that firemen should know where to find water the obvious solution therefore would have been to use values which are meaningless. But anyway, what about caches under water, under bridges, and on mountains or cliffs? Such caches also place the public and the rescue services in danger because if the cacher gets into trouble then a passing non-cacher may try to help, or the mountain rescue service may be called thus placing them - and others who may need their help - at risk. Are we to ban caches because they're "dangerous", however that's defined?

    If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.

    However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
    "Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I thought that fire hydrants were some things they have in the United States: pillars on the sidewalk for the fire service to plug hoses into. I wasn't aware that we have similar things in this country and have always assumed that the yellow H signs were information for water service employees so they could find stop valves. I would hope that the fire service knows where to obtain water. I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H: surely the water mains and hydrants are mapped? I've not heard of any other fire hydrant caches and therefore I believe that this particular case is an isolated incident which requires no futher action. History shows that laws made quickly or in response to only a few incidents are rarely good laws.

    One of the reasons why I don't like GAGB is their rule-bound ethos and whenever there's an incident there's immediately a knee-jerk reaction of a new rule. In general, I'm not in favour of rules in what is supposed to be just a bit of harmless fun. I do applaud GAGB for asking first, though the reply-by date seems to have passed already. Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.

    From what I've read, the water hydrants are owned by the water company and their use is governed by licence. However, fake water hydrants are neither owned by the water company nor licensed. I haven't been able to find anything on the legality of imitating a water hydrant and unless there is such a law then the fire service can't demand that caches not use fake hydrants. Conversely, if there is such a law then there's no need for a GAGB rule.

    It seems that the concern in this case is that non-cachers may be placed at risk by firemen wasting time looking for the hydrant which is pointed to by a fake sign. Aside from my belief that firemen should know where to find water the obvious solution therefore would have been to use values which are meaningless. But anyway, what about caches under water, under bridges, and on mountains or cliffs? Such caches also place the public and the rescue services in danger because if the cacher gets into trouble then a passing non-cacher may try to help, or the mountain rescue service may be called thus placing them - and others who may need their help - at risk. Are we to ban caches because they're "dangerous", however that's defined?

    If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.

    However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
    "Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."
    Part of the consultation is to see if we even need a new guideline.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    If these fire hydrants were as important as this issue suggests then they'd be much better protected in statute. Everyone in the US knows what a fire hydrant is and that it's against the law to park near one. I'm not aware of any similar rule in this country and I doubt that many people equate yellow Hs with fire hydrant.



    One google later ...

    A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).







    Life is too important to take seriously !

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I find it hard to believe that the first thing firemen do when arriving at a fire is to hunt around for a yellow H
    But....that's exactly what they do, after exhausting their water onboard.

  15. #15
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Predictable Bob View Post
    A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).
    Thanks for that - I did try, honest. Still, it's quite a recent Act and such things are rarely well publicised. Even the Highway Code doesn't make reference to it, except to say "Do not stop or park...Anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services", and I take that to mean access gates etc rather than hydrants.

    However, the important point is that a fake fire hydrant sign does not "damage or obstruct a fire hydrant".

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    However, the important point is that a fake fire hydrant sign does not "damage or obstruct a fire hydrant".
    But when your house is burning down with you in it, and the fire service are following a fake sign to try and find a hydrant that doesn't exist, the time wasted could just be enough

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Can't believe that some cant see this as a real danger!!!

    It is an offence to obstruct a fire hydrant.
    It would also be an offence if the emergency services were hindered by a vehicle covering a hydrant. This would probably also apply if they were obstructed in their duty by a false one (although this had never been proved in court as far as we know)

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    This was raised on [..]. Or it could have been[..]top of my head I can't remember. Not really an issue where it came from, its a issue that's been raised so rather than ignore it, it has been put out for discussion.
    I don't care where the issue was raised, it shouldn't have to be raised imho!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    To clarify once more GAGB publish guidelines not rules.
    Although clearly as this thread demonstrates some people lack common sense. Perhaps the GAGB should issue some rules especially when lives are potentially at risk.

    2p

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    ...
    Of course, any GAGB rule applies only to its members and the members of any listing site which chooses to adopt it.
    As far as Joe Public is concerned a cache is a cache.
    They are not bothered /don't know about the various different listing sites.

    If a cacher from site A makes a cache look like a bomb, and leaves it next to the local police station we all get a bad reputation from the fall out, when the cache is discovered. Especially if the Bomb Squad get called out...

    We have a responsibility to be sensible with what, and where, when we place a cache, so we don't bring 'Caching' into disrepute.
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs so we are now running a consultation with UK cachers and any listing sites who wish to contribute and take an active part. This consultation period will run to Saturday 3rd December. Folowing this period we will consider our next steps.

  21. #21

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    Sorry you feel that way. I was actually trying to look after the interests of the GAGB as it appears to me that the GAGB is being used to serve a personal agenda. As stated in the OP the GAGB have been asked to create a RULE, by whom is what I was asking.

    For me unless we know all the facts it appears that the agenda is being set behind closed doors by possibly a commercial organisation.
    Come off it, we're talking safety here as anyone who has looked at the Facebook topic will already know.

  22. #22

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    I have had a quick skim on the GAGB facebook page but can not see it, can you post a link?
    Not sure how to do links. It's in UK & Ireland GC Reviewers & Community Tea Bar and posted by Terry Ryan.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    DELETED POST:

    My statements are now redundant and have been answered later in this thread, so removing so not to spread false information.
    Last edited by Sven; 26th November 2011 at 10:44 PM.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    However, if there must be a rule then it has to be sufficiently broad and vague to ensure that there doesn't need to be a rule for every particular issue. Something like:
    "Imaginative and innovative hides greatly enhance geocaching by adding to its variety and such hides are encouraged. However, do give careful consideration to the appropriateness of the hiding place, particularly with regard to the safety of non-cachers. For example, a cache hidden on or inside a fake gas valve or fake fire hydrant could endanger others and such hides are best avoided."
    Quote Originally Posted by Ve8 View Post
    Adding something specific to the current guidelines such as a fire hydrant sign could risk creating a massive set of guidelines over the long term which nobody will be bothered to read. I think something more general covering health and safety might be more appropriate maybe including this as an example. It should go without saying the wording will need careful construction, it's also worth considering how this could adversely effect some of the excellent hides which already in place.
    I agree with the above.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Loughton, Essex
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Where there's a total lack of common sense, you need rules rather than guidelines.

  26. #26

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    Glad to hear you take this as an issue of safety, perhaps we could hear a few of your thoughts on the topic? Or you could just keep stirring the pot, it is a free country for now it's your pleasure.
    We don't seem to have heard your thoughts on the actual topic either.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    It may just be me but I can not see on there who requested the GAGB look at this either . This is yet another FB page I don't monitor!
    I am not going to disclose which reviewer made the request. As all members they have a right to make a request privately if they wish. So do you.

    Now lets get on with discussing the real issue as per the OP.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    It may just be me but I can not see on there who requested the GAGB look at this either . This is yet another FB page I don't monitor!

    Adding a bit more info so you can find it (because facebook posts move down so fast)...

    As MBFace says, it's in UK & Ireland Reviewers' Tea Bar ... scroll down to the post from Terry Ryan on 2nd November.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St Dennis, Cornwall.
    Posts
    3

    Default

    For what its worth - the view of a fairly new cacher reading through this thread, which in responding may seem to stray off topic a bit.
    When I first discovered caching I dropped in here alot for newbie type info. since then I haven't been back really until I had my email about voting & felt that as the organisation is representing my hobby I really ought to show an interest.

    I was surprised at the extent of what appears to me - I admit an outsider - to be petty & also fairly disrespectful bickering between people, for whom as afar as i can see the main difference is the listing site they chose to select their caches from. All sorts of accusations flying around.
    This was to the extent that i almost thought, you know what i'm just going to walk away from this & pretend the GAGB doesn't exist, then common sense prevailed & I voted - no vote no voice etc.

    Today i went on the facebook page & saw a link to this discussion. I remembered the discussion on the page about it & thought I'd drop in to see how the discussion was going.
    The same thing appears to be happening again.

    Again as an outsider & a newbie - surely the important point here is that the caching community - it doesn't matter which 'branch' first contact was with! - has been made aware, by those who are in a position to know, that this type of cache has potential safety consequenses for the public.

    Clearly since this type of cache has been placed in the past, this may occur again. Therefore it seems sensible to have some sort of guideline which makes those who may not otherwise appreciate it could be a problem, that this type of cache is undesirable.
    Quite apart from simply addressing a potential safety concern, surely it makes sense in order to protect the reputation of the game as a whole by avoiding further similar complaints?!

    I would agree with a previous poster that the guideline probably needs to be a bit broader than specifically fire hydrants, as there are undoubtedly similar scenarios which present the same problems.

    Thats it, newbie had her admittedly long winded say for what its worth - please try to play nice!! h34r: & come to the best decision for the game rather than bringing politics into it!
    Ruth
    newly addicted cacher, usually accompanied by small cachette daughter.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    I am someone who has for a long time thought there was a proliferation of new RULES (anyone who really considers them guidelines needs to place a cache disobeying one and see how far they get!) I think that trying to legislate for every eventuality is a futile exercise. I think that Alan White's suggested guideline is an excellent idea and gives the GC reviewers sufficient background to enable them to justify denying or archiving a Groundspeak cache on common sense grounds. After all, I do know how reviewers work and I still remember having to apply what we thought was common sense grounds for refusing "stupid" caches that were not specifically covered by the then Groundspeak "guidelines".

    This is a simple game played by and administered by simple people. Why make any more complicated than necessary?

    All that being said, I have an uneasy feeling that anything slightly contentious that is brought up in these forums is seemingly being used as a weapon to promote one of two apparently opposing factions. As an outsider who has no axe to grind I am rapidly becoming sick of both sides sniping and innuendo.

    FFS PLEASE get out there and hide/seek plastic boxes. Being able to explore our towns, villages and open countryside at a whim is a luxury a lot of people would dearly love to be able to indulge in but cannot.

    YOU are the lucky ones - don't forget it.

  31. #31

    Default

    A person commits an offence if he / she damages or obstructs a fire hydrant, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).
    As Bob has so kindly pointed out there is a law covering this and i feel sure there will be other such laws covering other types of safety signage.

    So a new rule/guideline (call it whatever you like) needs to cover all safety signs and equipment with maybe an example being a fire hydrant.

    This would prevent someone that is planing to create a fake emergency telephone box from thinking "oh its only hydrants that are banned so it doesn't mean me"

    You would have thought common sense would have covered this in the first place but as we all know its not that common.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Please stay on subject

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    TBH I think the code of conduct covers it really, may need an example throwing in.

  34. #34
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    But would just like to clarify who asked the GAGB to consider making it a rule?
    An excellent question. Reading further down the thread it seems that someone in a closed place on Facebook for UK Groundspeak reviewers made the request. It seems to me that this is yet another rule being made at the request of Groundspeak (cf. fake bolts, memorials, and urban caches, to name just a few). For how long are GB cachers going to allow the representatives of a foreign commercial company to dictate the rules of the hobby? GAGB is supposed to represent cachers: Groundspeak is quite able to represent itself.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    To add my own, I'm ashamed to be part of a group whose members seem to prefer petty bickering to dealing with important issues, and those using this thread to "score points" should be ashamed of themselves.

    My opinion on the original, and important question.
    It would be nice to think nobody would be stupid enough to create a false safety sign of any type (fire hydrant, emergency exit, etc..), but it seems this game draws all sorts into its ranks, and, in this case, we need a rule to save the majority (and populace) from the stupidity of the few before the game is brought into further disrepute.

  36. Default



    Apologies for straying off topic a little but I think we'd all do well to remember that people vary in intelligence and common sense - what seems obvious to one individual will be a complete mystery to another ...

    In military parlance - assumptions are the mother of all f ups !

    Back on topic - In general I'm against rules and legislation as they are too often used in ways not intended but in this case I would be in favour of a general rule/guideline/whatever along the lines of Alan White's suggestion unless this is already covered by the existing guidlines


    Last edited by Predictable Bob; 27th November 2011 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Added bit in italics to cover my ...





    Life is too important to take seriously !

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    An excellent question. Reading further down the thread it seems that someone in a closed place on Facebook for UK Groundspeak reviewers made the request. It seems to me that this is yet another rule being made at the request of Groundspeak (cf. fake bolts, memorials, and urban caches, to name just a few). For how long are GB cachers going to allow the representatives of a foreign commercial company to dictate the rules of the hobby? GAGB is supposed to represent cachers: Groundspeak is quite able to represent itself.
    Alan you and any other cacher are free to join the Facebook Group we don't discriminate on who joins. Currently the Group has 260 members, with the newest member being added approximately 2 hours ago (so around 11:00 on the 27-11-11).

    Also the topic and the cache which generated the topic were heavily discussed on a separate Facebook group as well. One Non Reviewer who happens to be either a serving or former Fire Service Officer, made direct contact with the Mid and West Wales Fire Service, they made direct contact with Groundspeak. Who then instructed the Welsh Reviewers, not to List any similar cache in future.

    FYI the owner of the Cache which instigated this issue, posted to the Non Reviewer FB Group that the West and Mid Wales Fire Service had requested that

    The Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service has directly contacted Groundspeak (who own Geocaching.com) and asked that this cache be archived on Health and Safety grounds since the cache could cause fire crews confusion, potentially costing lives.

    They have also asked that no other caches be hidden in Wales using real or fake Fire Hydrant signs.


    why not contact your local Fire and Rescue Service, and obtain their official opinion on this.

    The reason the GAGB was requested to consider implementing a Guideline over Hydrant Signs. Is that they are the ones in a position to interact with the "Other" Listing Sites. This is not a request generated by the UK Reviewers, but as you can see, it was generated by the Mid and West Fire and Rescue Service. Applying a Guideline that has been generated by a Emergency Service, is useless unless all Listing Sites apply it, and it's also useless if only one part of the UK applies it, because Emergency Services in other parts of the UK , will still be put "at risk" of fire crews facing confusion, potentially costing lives.

    I sincerely hope that a member of your family or friends, are never "put at risk" because a member of the UK's Geocaching Community thought it clever to use a False Hydrant sign as a Cache. One Listed on any Listing Site. Your attitude would soon change then!

    Personally as I have been instructed by Groundspeak not to Publish any cache in North Wales, which uses a False or modified Hydrant Sign. I will not do so, I can't control what other Listing Sites do, but do hope that they will comply with the request of the Mid and West Wales Fire Service, and avoid potential risk of life.

    To make it very clear to those who are "nit" picking about who generate the request. It was originally generated by the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, the GAGB being request to consider such a Guideline, as they are the ones who outreach to the other Listing Sites. As far as Groundspeak are concerned, no cache using a Hydrant Sign may be Listed in Wales on GC. It's now up to the GAGB and the Other Listing Sites, to decide if they adopt such a Guideline, or if they ignore the request of the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Please don't keep trying to point the finger of blame at GC's Reviewers.

    Stop politicking and look at who actually made the request, and their reason for doing so!

    Deci

    In reply to the comment made by frosty68. The cache which generated this issue, was published in good faith. But as I often tell new geocachers, Geocaching is a never ending learning curve, with Reviewers one step ahead of the community,

    This hobby is just 11 years old, and as such we are still on a learning curve, the Hydrant Sign is just one move on that learning curve. In the future when we hit the realms of Fahrenheit 451* we will then be in a position to not worry about the usage of Hydrant Signs as caches. But until then we do.

    *No I'm not referring to the combustion point of books, but to the fact Fireman are no longer needed to put out Fires. As everything is Fireproof.
    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

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    A
    It was originally generated by the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, the GAGB being request to consider such a Guideline, as they are the ones who outreach to the other Listing Sites. As far as Groundspeak are concerned, no cache using a Hydrant Sign may be Listed in Wales on GC.

    (In the above quote the emphases are mine. DaveD)

    In the above post Deci states that as Geocaching is only just 11 years old it is essential to realise it is still a growing pastime, and the way the game is played is still evolving, as it will continue to do.

    The pastime is becoming more well known, is attracting a much more diverse following - in itself a very good agent for evolution - it is becoming more mainstream.

    As such perhaps those in overall control (such as the owners of Geocaching.com, Opencaching, (Garmin) Opencaching, Terracaching etc) need to reconsider the language they use to run the pastime.

    As I understand it a "Guideline" is a statement of what someone feels ought to be done. It is advisory and not mandatory.

    A "Rule" or "Regulation" is something that has to be done. It is mandatory.

    Where people see the phrase "Guideline" they could make a similar interpretation to my own, they could see it as advisory.

    The placing of fake fire hydrant signs as being discussed here is, certainly for me, something that should not be done - for the variety of reasons already outlined.

    It should be a rule, and stated as such in the various organisations manifestoes.

    Placing a cache in a plastic bag can make the cache unpleasant and dank to handle, some authorities also have seen it as a hazard to wildlife. Perhaps the advice to not place a cache in a plastic bag could be seen as a "Guideline"?

    I would expect a reviewer (from any organisation) to apply the "Rules" or "Regulations" asolutely, and be less fastidious about applying the "Guidleines" - other than to remind the CO of their existance.

    Whatever phraseology is adopted, as with all "Rules", "Regulations" and "Guidelines" there will always be the added complication of interpretation (how else would the barristers and solicitors make a living), but use of a common and easily understandable phraseology could reduce the amount of angst and argument the evolution of a pastime has been shown to generate.

    DaveD
    Last edited by dodgydaved; 27th November 2011 at 01:17 PM. Reason: speeling and typography!

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Please stay on subject
    That would seem the most sensible suggestion, particularly as there is a law covering this. Maybe rather than examples we could mention emergency signage in general and point out there are that laws prohibit imitating them?

    edit to correct spelling... my very first and hopefully last post edit!
    Last edited by Lord Boogie; 27th November 2011 at 07:36 PM.
    Trust your feelings, let go your conscious self


  40. #40
    welshcaseys Guest

    Default

    I don't know enough to know whether 'rules' or 'guidelines' are needed for this, but do think something is needed (if it's not already covered somewhere else).

    Although a lot of people would assume that firefighters would know where to locate hydrants (and I'm sure that many do, at least for the areas in which they work), the reality is that it's not always local firefighters who attend. Last year we had a lot of heath fires in the summer, several multiple car accidents and numerous other emergency calls, all of which were attended by fire crews from other areas because the local crews were either already busy elsewhere or needed additional help. It's also true that people under pressure or in unfamiliar circumstances don't always think as clearly as normal - and that even a few seconds delay could be catastrophic.

    I don't think anyone would ever want to deliberately put people at risk and common sense is definitely an issue; that said, I'd like to think I've got a reasonable amount of common sense and I've made some pretty silly mistakes in the past. Sometimes it's easy to overlook something when you're caught up in the midst of it all and then, when you look back, you can't believe you made such a stupid mistake.

    Maybe some guidelines with a few examples might help to avoid it?

  41. #41
    Fianccetto Guest

    Default

    Totally agree that we don't want any yellow H signs used as geocaches, fake or otherwise.

    When this first came up on facebook, I was surprised they were being sold without restriction too, but then read that the signs are sold legally because a fair number of larger private (or those new community/gated type) residences and business premises have a legal requirement to have a clear sign by the nearest water source (and provide access to the water source).

    (Our nearest hydrant sign is on a nearby wall and the water is accessed under a metal cover in the road. It is always good to know where the nearest one is to where you live!)

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    The RULE should be that no cache should be placed in such a way that that is illegal or causes (directly or indirectly) a nuisance or danger to the public.

    The GUIDELINE should be not to place a cache in such a way that is illegal or causes (directly or indirectly) a problem with public safety. Examples include a fake sign that potentially misleads (e.g, fake fire hydrant sign, false direction sign), or tampering with safety barriers...etc. This is not a comprehensive list; check the law and use common sense.

    Should it become clear that the rule has been broken for a particular cache, then it's sufficient for the reviewer to quote the rule without referring to the guideline.

    Listing numerous rules which basically boil down to using common sense is likely to be counter-productive. There's bound to be the occasional cacher who'll check the list and if the cache breaks none of the specified rules then he'll go ahead. So another rule will have to be created to cover the new problem, but not until after a problem has been caused.

    In any case, I guess the number of fire hydrant sign caches is pretty small. So having a specific rule just for those would be silly.

  43. #43
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    From the groundspeak side of things surely this already covers the situation without the need for adding in extra bits:

    1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines
    http://support.groundspeak.com/index...kb.page&id=304
    All local laws apply.This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it....
    I'm still at a loss to why Groundspeak have banned the hydrant sign caches in Wales ONLY (as stated by Deci). If the placement is illegal then the cache was already in breach of the guidelines before it was published (and not just in Wales).
    Last edited by Ve8; 27th November 2011 at 06:19 PM.

  44. #44

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ve8 View Post
    I'm still at a loss to why Groundspeak have banned the hydrant sign caches in Wales ONLY (as stated by Deci).
    Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?

  45. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?
    Or "they" thought common sense was
    Trust your feelings, let go your conscious self


  46. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?


    That's not beyond the realms of possibility - over the other side of the pond laws are different between states so it's not unreasonable to think that laws would differ between countries






    Life is too important to take seriously !

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by welshcaseys View Post
    Although a lot of people would assume that firefighters would know where to locate hydrants (and I'm sure that many do, at least for the areas in which they work)
    Without sounding rude, which might be hard on a textual medium....That's a very silly statement.

    You're expecting these lads to know about little grates in the ground at irregular intervals on every single road in the xxx mile surrounding area?


  48. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Predictable Bob View Post


    That's not beyond the realms of possibility - over the other side of the pond laws are different between states so it's not unreasonable to think that laws would differ between countries

    I thought we were the 53rd state
    Trust your feelings, let go your conscious self


  49. #49

    Default

    Not all firemen/women work the same patch i know our local fire station sometimes have to cover other locations so they are not local to the fire they would surely just look for the nearest yellow H they can find down a lane/road so that way it would be a risk of safety to have fake ones in place?

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Hi, I'm new

    My opinion...As has already been stated, I believe there is no need for any extra guidelines.

    A cache is already required to be within the law. Imitating a fire hydrant is not within the law, so therefore there is already a guideline covering it.

    No point creating ridiculous new guidelines for the sake of it just because of one incident.

    Otherwise next week it'll be something else and another guideline will be added.

    Cheers

    Ben

Posting Permissions

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