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

Thread: Fire Hydrant Signs - consultation

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  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 06:15 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
    854

    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
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    1,094

    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 -

  7. #7

    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

  8. #8

    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

  9. #9
    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.

  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 Ł500 (Fire and Rescue Services Act Section 42).







    Life is too important to take seriously !

  14. #14
    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 Ł500 (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".

  15. #15

    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.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    854

    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

  17. #17

    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.

  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
    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.

  20. #20

    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.

  21. #21

    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.

  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 11:44 PM.

  24. #24

    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.

  25. #25

    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.

  26. #26

    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.

  27. #27

    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.

  28. #28

    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.

  29. #29

    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 Ł500 (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.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Please stay on subject

  31. #31

    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.

  32. #32
    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.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    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

  34. #34

    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 02:17 PM. Reason: speeling and typography!

  35. #35

    Default

    A no brainier. A fake hydrant sign may cause safety issues in the event of a fire. One would assume that the fire services know where the hydrants are in any given area though.
    Did someone actually think it would be a good idea to produce a fake hydrant? By its very production, advertisement on a website or in a shop...this is being given credence and, by connection with Groundspeak because they sell other caching items, accreditation as something which would be great to use.
    Incredible. BAN them.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Grounsdspeak have allready created there own rule so any further guidelines in that regard are pretty pointless.

    Even if the fake sign is in the middle of a wood (found one like this) its now banned by GC i fully expect that ban to be country wide allready

    I believe the existing GAGB guidelines allready cover this type of placement so no need for anything new.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Allthough the following links provide details it quite obviously does not mention fake signs. Haing read them it does appear its illegal or at the very least they have an act they could prosecute you against or officially place a warning on your record against.



    http://www.norfolkfireservice.gov.uk/hydrants.html#law


    http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=7144

    NB all the fireservice websites have the same stuff on them
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Hi all

    I though I'd throw in my concerns about this having spent many 3 o'clocks in the morning searching for yellow H signs.

    This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (a Fire Service).

    We do have maps of the location of all hydrants but much like caching we have the cords/junction info but have to conduct a search once we get to GZ - it's not always immediately obvious believe me!!!! Fire engines carry a limited amount of water (approx 1600ish litres) so finding a hydrant quickly is usually one of the first concerns when attending as fire.

    A fake sign would definitely cause confusion, especially if in a remote location where the hydrants are few and far between. The numbers on the signs also have very specific meanings: distance away from the sign and size of water main, which obviously are important pieces of information for us.

    I’ll stay out of the rule/guideline debate but would be massively against this type of cache, and like others have said I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.

    Cheers
    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 28th November 2011 at 01:54 PM.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    We do have maps of the location of all hydrants
    Never knew that!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.
    Knew that though

  40. #40

    Default

    There are some things which ought to be common sense. Creating a fake hydrant sign is one of them IMO.

    (and I always wondered what the numbers on the sign meant!)

  41. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45

    Exclamation

    Speaking as a reviewer, I'd like to add the following to the discussion;



    1. In light of the complaint by South and West Wales fire and Rescue Service, the concerns of one Fire service are likely to be similar to those of other such organisations.



    It seems prudent to be proactive in addressing those concerns.





    2. There is no consensus as to what is 'sensible' or 'common sense' :wacko:.




    If is left to individuals to determine what is sensible then on occasion their enthusiasm for hiding something that is different and/or clever can get a bit out of control.




    When it is left to me and the other Groundspeak reviewers to decide what we each consider to be sensible in our own territories, we get accused in forums (including this one) of being power-mad, inconsistent despots working to hidden guidelines and secret agendas .




    It would therefore be useful (an open and transparent) if there were some publicly-stated policy, advice or note that I could point people to, and which cachers could hopefully read before going to the effort of sourcing and placing a cache disguised as a fake fire hydrant sign.





    3. More guidelines mean more work for me as a reviewer, and probably mean less fun for everyone as a player.



    Guidelines are sometimes a bit 'sledgehammer and nut'. If only to make my life as easy as possible, 'rule creep' should be avoided as much as possible.


    If the decision reached is to give some form of advice or guidance, I'd rather see something narrow and specific like "please don't hide caches disguised as fire hydrant signs, or place caches that cause damage to fire hydrant signs or alter the information they provide" rather than a broad "Don't hide caches in such a manner as to potentially inconvenience the emergency services".



    If it is decided that action is required, it might be more practical to add any advice as an addendum to the cacher's code, perhaps to the …”Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm” section (https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geoc...de-of-conduct/), rather than create a new guideline specific to Fire Hydrant signs.







    Regards,




    Andalusite

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    Hi all

    I though I'd throw in my concerns about this having spent many 3 o'clocks in the morning searching for yellow H signs.

    This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (a Fire Service).

    We do have maps of the location of all hydrants but much like caching we have the cords/junction info but have to conduct a search once we get to GZ - it's not always immediately obvious believe me!!!! Fire engines carry a limited amount of water (approx 1600ish litres) so finding a hydrant quickly is usually one of the first concerns when attending as fire.

    A fake sign would definitely cause confusion, especially if in a remote location where the hydrants are few and far between. The numbers on the signs also have very specific meanings: distance away from the sign and size of water main, which obviously are important pieces of information for us.

    I’ll stay out of the rule/guideline debate but would be massively against this type of cache, and like others have said I would of thought it obvious to not create this type of cache.

    Cheers
    The answer to one part of Deci's post above from page 4 of this thread.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    696

    Default

    I'm not convinced that we need a guideline/rule for this, as it seems pretty common sense to me and a reviewer shouldn't need a written rule to justify refusing/archiving something like this.

    However if there is to be something then it should be phrased in general terms such that it can be used to cover an cache which may interfere with any safety equipment/services, and not be specific to this one instance (which is going to be pretty rare).

  44. #44
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Grounsdspeak have allready created there own rule so any further guidelines in that regard are pretty pointless.
    This is a very important point. Groundspeak - especially the UK reviewers - have shown many times that they're perfectly capable of making up any rule they like in order to enforce their view of how the game should be played. They certainly don't need any help from GAGB.

    So why is GAGB proposing a new rule? Groundspeak doesn't need it; other listing sites will decide for themselves what to do; and GAGB doesn't place caches. Of course, the logical end for this discussion is that GAGB doesn't need to have any rules about placing caches. Then it would have more time to be an organisation for cachers rather than a rule-making body.

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Even if the fake sign is in the middle of a wood (found one like this) its now banned by GC
    Yes, that's the trouble with rules: they're inflexible and often foolishly applied. I'm reminded of the last foot and mouth outbreak when UK reviewers summarily disabled all caches within the controlled area, even if they were in an urban setting which hasn't seen a farm animal in a hundred years.

  45. #45

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    This is a very important point. Groundspeak - especially the UK reviewers - have shown many times that they're perfectly capable of making up any rule they like in order to enforce their view of how the game should be played. They certainly don't need any help from GAGB.

    So why is GAGB proposing a new rule? Groundspeak doesn't need it; other listing sites will decide for themselves what to do; and GAGB doesn't place caches. Of course, the logical end for this discussion is that GAGB doesn't need to have any rules about placing caches. Then it would have more time to be an organisation for cachers rather than a rule-making body.


    Yes, that's the trouble with rules: they're inflexible and often foolishly applied. I'm reminded of the last foot and mouth outbreak when UK reviewers summarily disabled all caches within the controlled area, even if they were in an urban setting which hasn't seen a farm animal in a hundred years.
    I am probably wasting my time typing this BUT once again I will repeat it, the GAGB DO NOT make any rules at all, we post guidelines which are not mandatory to follow.

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    I am probably wasting my time typing this BUT once again I will repeat it, the GAGB DO NOT make any rules at all, we post guidelines which are not mandatory to follow.
    If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

    Why the reluctance to recognise this?

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

    Why the reluctance to recognise this?
    Not all of them do the urban guideline is not used by several GC reviewers. The guidelines are not just for GC.com

  48. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    If Groundspeak reviewers follow them religiously when publishing Groundspeak listed caches then they are de-facto RULES.

    Why the reluctance to recognise this?
    This is one of my pet hates with the GAGB. I know the intention from GAGB is that they are guidelines, published in order to help new geocachers benefit from our experience and, ahem, common sense. However groundspeak reviewers play fast and loose with these "guidelines" and point people in the direction of the GAGB when somebody challenges a reviewer. I have had a cache refused on the strength that I did not comply with a GAGB "rule". I got over it but it did bug me at the time and still does when I see it time and time again. IMHO:wacko:
    Trust your feelings, let go your conscious self


  49. #49

    Default

    For once I am in agreement. It should stop any arguments over rules verses guidelines.

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin (The Wobbly Club) View Post
    For once I am in agreement. It should stop any arguments over rules verses guidelines.

    Certainly should as far as GAGB are concerned - but until the listing sites also
    accept that some of their "Guidelines" are not advisory but are mandatory "Rules" or "Regulations" it will not make the lives of the reviewers or COs any easier.............

Posting Permissions

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