Thanks Thanks:  58
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 128

Thread: Fire Hydrant Signs - consultation

  1. #51
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRabble View Post
    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
    I believe the issue is to do with fake fire hydrant signs, not hydrants themselves?

  2. #52

    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.

  3. #53
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Boogie View Post
    we could mention emergency signage in general and point out there are that laws prohibit imitating them?
    There are? If that's true then there's no need for any GAGB involvement. Please could you quote your source.

  4. #54
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    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.
    Indeed so, and exactly the point I made in my first post. There's a modern tendency in society, whenever a specific issue arises, to make a law banning or restricting the thing that gave rise to the issue. Groundspeak, ably abetted by GAGB, is especially good at this.

    This is a hobby about seeking harmless boxes in the countryside. It should not, and does not, require rules that need a lawyer to know and understand.

  5. #55
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    Maybe "they" thought laws in the different countries of the UK were different?
    The laws in the different nations of the UK are different. Scotland has always had its own laws and legal system; devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland has brought more differences; even local councils of all levels have their own laws which apply only within their jurisdictions.

  6. #56
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sven View Post
    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?
    I can't speak for welshcaseys but I would certainly expect the hydrants to be recorded and mapped and for the fire service control centre to be able to view on maps the location of the incident and the location of the nearest hydrants and to direct the firemen to them. If this isn't already done then that should be of much greater concern to those wanting more rules to restrict our hobby.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    We two are happy for there to be a guideline explicitly prohibiting the use of fake Fire Hydrant signs ,and any other piece of fake street furniture , for hiding caches or info for stages of caches .
    We like Greens

  8. #58
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRabble View Post
    Imitating a fire hydrant is not within the law
    And your source for that is...? Even if that's true, we're discussing fake hydrant signs, not fake hydrants.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRabble View Post
    No point creating ridiculous new guidelines for the sake of it just because of one incident.
    I agree entirely. Unfortunately that is always the immediate and default action of both Groundspeak and GAGB.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRabble View Post
    Otherwise next week it'll be something else and another guideline will be added.
    As you're new you won't be aware that that's what happens. The list of rules introduced by Groundspeak and GAGB since I started caching in 2003 has become longer and longer, from a dozen or so fairly common-sense suggestions to the present ever-growing diverse and partly unpublished rules that there now are.

    I would love to see a single coherent list of every rule which must be complied with in order to get a cache published on Groundspeak in the UK. I'm sure it would be many tens of pages long. Perhaps then cachers would appreciate the volume of restrictions.

    I can understand why Groundspeak introduces more rules. It's a commercial company and in the litigious USA it feels a need to protect itself against law suits. What I don't understand is why GAGB - an organisation which purports to help GB cachers yet does nothing in that area - helps it do it.

  9. #59
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    guideline explicitly prohibiting
    That's an oxymoron. A guideline can only suggest, advise or recommend. To ban something one needs a law or a rule.

  10. #60

    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."

  11. #61

    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."

  12. #62

    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).

  13. #63

    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 12:54 PM.

  14. #64

    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

  15. #65

    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!)

  16. #66

    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 (http://gagb.co.uk/what-is-geocaching...de-of-conduct/), rather than create a new guideline specific to Fire Hydrant signs.







    Regards,




    Andalusite

  17. #67
    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.

  18. #68

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

    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.

  19. #69

    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?

  20. #70

    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

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Not all of them do the urban guideline is not used by several GC reviewers. The guidelines are not just for GC.com
    Depends if you're on the blacklist or not. h34r:

  22. #72

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    That's an oxymoron. A guideline can only suggest, advise or recommend. To ban something one needs a law or a rule.
    Suggestion ,advice and recommendation are some interpretations for the meaning of "guideline".
    Instruction ,rule and regulation are some others .
    We like Greens

  23. #73

    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


  24. #74

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

    Default

    and unfortunately the GAGB is left somewhere between a ROCK and a VERY HARD PLACE.

    Our intentions have always been that they are there to guide and help cachers that do not have the total knowledge that some have gained, we have no control whatsoever over the GC Reviewers and how they interpret them.

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Just because some reviewers see them as written in stone, does that mean that our members give up their voice and the possibility of influencing them to treat them as guidelines.

    They are guidelines if some (not all) reviewers choose to treat them as rules we cannot force their hand, we can try to influence though. Some they will always treat as rules though.

    If anyone has had a cache refused on the grounds of it being against our guidelines feel free to contact us and we will try and mediate.

  26. #76

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I agree safety is a valid reason to consider making a guidline but in this instance I do believe it is covered. If a reviewer from a listing site wants a guideline or rule then they should do that internally. If it is deemed a good idea then listing sites would be crazy not to, wouldn't they?

    That is also the crux of why I wanted to know the origin of the request.

    So I recommend rather than create a new guideline/rule or modify any existing ones we should create a new document with a non ambiguous title listing things we suggest a kind of geocachers best practice (a term oft used by industry when trying to negate the need for legislation) that way it could not be interpreted as a rule and we can get some really helpful advice into it. The need for GAGB guidelines would be superseded by this new document.

    Maybe the GAGB should also consider sending cease and desist requests to listing sites reviewers who enforce guidelines as rules. The geocaching community could then take the GAGB more seriously as a body that represent them?
    Trust your feelings, let go your conscious self


  27. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    and unfortunately the GAGB is left somewhere between a ROCK and a VERY HARD PLACE.

    Our intentions have always been that they are there to guide and help cachers that do not have the total knowledge that some have gained, we have no control whatsoever over the GC Reviewers and how they interpret them.
    I think if you made the stance VERY clear with a disclaimer within the guidelines (at the bottom) that these are only guidelines and you think each cache should be taken on it's own merits then you wouldn't fall foul of this. The reviewers then cannot hide behind you, they have to then quantify their decision!

    My own example of having the urban "guideline" imposed in a rural location is a very good indication of this?

    Edt: Clarification

    I was all for it until I saw this;

    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
    Which makes sense, I'd have no problem with a fire hydrant at the top of Snowdon, for example.....Blanket rules cannot fit every scenario and provision needs to be made to take each cache on it's own merits...

    This would prevent prejudice against individual cachers and reviewers couldn't hide behind rules because they feel someone should be penalised. Well that's the theory anyway...
    Last edited by Sven; 28th November 2011 at 06:14 PM.

  28. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    This makes great sense - I am happy to agree with Sven on this one
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  29. #79

    Default

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

  30. #80

    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.............

  31. #81
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    If GAGB intends the things listed at http://gagb.co.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
    "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
    "No cache should be placed in or on..."
    "Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
    "Fences should never be crossed..."
    are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.

  32. #82

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    If GAGB intends the things listed at http://gagb.co.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
    "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
    "No cache should be placed in or on..."
    "Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
    "Fences should never be crossed..."
    are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.
    Intentionally or otherwise, I think that the wording is fine as far as defining guidelines is concerned. The word "should" is used, which is a "guideline" word. Where I've seen rules defined, the word used is "shall" (
    "No cache shall be placed in or on...").

    However, I'd like to see these guidelines rewritten as a "guide to best practice". If a reviewer feels that a cache listing falls too far short of "best practice" then he might ask the submitter to make changes.

  33. #83

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    If GAGB intends the things listed at http://gagb.co.uk/what-is-geocaching/cache-guidelines/ to be guidelines rather than rules then almost every one of them needs to be rewritten. Phrases such as:
    "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage..."
    "No cache should be placed in or on..."
    "Ensure the cache container is clearly marked..."
    "Fences should never be crossed..."
    are obviously to be taken as mandatory and were intended to be so.



    The they should be stated as rules.

    FWIW, a quote from Wikipedia - the emphases are mine:


    "A guideline is a statement by which to determine a course of action. A guideline aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine or sound practice. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory. Guidelines are not binding and are not enforced. ( U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov/trm/TRMGlossaryPage.asp )"

  34. #84
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    The word "should" is used, which is a "guideline" word. Where I've seen rules defined, the word used is "shall"
    I knew someone would comment on that .

    Many hours and bytes have been expended in discussions about the intended meaning of "should" in rules and standards. Some people write and read it to mean "shall", "must" or "may"; others interpret it differently (I struggle for examples here because "should" really doesn't convey anything but "must"). According to both of the fairly large dictionaries I have to hand, "should" is the past of "shall" and therefore conveys exactly the meaning you think it doesn't .

    The best that can be said is that the use of "should" is almost always ambiguous and is therefore best avoided in favour of stronger or weaker words depending on the intention.

    For guidelines, words such as "consider", "recommend", "discourage", "encourage" are more appropriate. For rules, "must", "do not", "ensure", "disallowed" will be more likely to ensure that the reader understands the meaning.

    Now see which of those words have been chosen for the "guidelines" on many caching sites and the intention of the authors is clear: caching currently has rules not guidelines.

    I entirely agree about the "best practice" approach. Recently I contributed to something similar on OCUK.

  35. #85

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    This makes great sense - I am happy to agree with Sven on this one
    Ditto best suggestion for a change ive seen for ages :socool:
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  36. #86

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I'll concede to Alan on that point, and agree that we should have a statement of best practice so that a cacher can refer to it and be fairly sure that their cache has been placed properly (in the view of the GAGB).

    The best practice guide should include a disclaimer, explaining that it constitutes a "GAGB best practice guide" only, and following it doesn't guarantee that your cache will be listed anywhere. Conversely, ignoring the guide doesn't guarantee that your listing will be refused, as the GAGB has no control over the listing sites and has an advisory role only.

    If (for instance) a Geocaching.com reviewer then refuses your listing because the cache "breaks GAGB rules", you could point out the "advisory role" nature of the GAGB and ask where the rule exists on Groundspeak's own website.

  37. #87

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I can't speak for welshcaseys but I would certainly expect the hydrants to be recorded and mapped and for the fire service control centre to be able to view on maps the location of the incident and the location of the nearest hydrants and to direct the firemen to them..
    Indeed they do with there own custom overlay

    http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswe.../example1.html

    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  38. #88

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Indeed they do with there own custom overlay

    http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswe.../example1.html

    So will a Serving or former Fire Services Officer, who has actively been tasked on a Pump. Confirm that on arrival at a location, the Drive who is tasked with making the connection from the Hydrant to the Appliance. Is going to contact the Control Centre, to confirm that the Hydrant Sign, 4m from the Appliance is "Genuine"? Or is the Driver just going to presume so, and act accordingly, so delaying connection, before contacting Control to find out where the Hydrant actually is located?

    There are always 2 ways of looking at things, and the West and Mid Wales Fire and Rescue Service obviously took the second view!

    And a Question for the GAGB Committee, can all the posts, discussing what is a Guideline and what is a Rule, also those discussing who requested the Guideline. Be moved to their own separate topic?

    As this topic was supposed to be about consulting about a request generated by the West and Mid Wales Fire and Rescue Service on Safety grounds.

    Note to those who will vocally complain that a GC Reviewer is trying to Censor discussion! I HAVE ASKED THAT THE POSTS BE MOVED TO A SEPARATE TOPIC! That's not censorship, just a request to split out a separate discussion into its own Topic to allow it to flow unimpeded!
    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

  39. #89

    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."

  40. #90

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Not quite sure what you're asking here but I'm happy to comment with my personel opinion.

    I also support moving all the "rule/guidline" and "must/should/will" stuff to another thread!!!!

    Generally speaking it is usually the driver of the appliance who will locate and "run out" from the hydrant. In the inital stages of an incident he is a very, very busy guy!! (no sexism comments please ) I'll not bore you with all his specific responsibilities but if the appliance is crewed with minimum numbers his tasks are delegated out to about a minmum of three people as more become available.

    Different Services have different arrangments for locating a hydrant, most have some sort of mapping sofware available but its ususlly not the first port of call as it can often be outdated. Looking/searching for the hydrant signs is usually the first locating method, including keeping an eye out whilst driving in.

    If the incident is located in an urban (I know......) area there will usually be plenty of hydrants available, and they tend to be in specific places - junctions etc. However they can still be a fair distance apart - read 50m plus.

    Have a look next time you are out and about in a rural area to see how easy to find and how many hydrants are about - you'll be surprised how hard it is.

    We do of course have other ways of getting water especially for larger incidents but a hydrant is usually the first port of call.

    So what I'm getting at is an operationlal incident is difficult to deal with enough, and in the above text I'm only talking locating a hydrant. Putting an extra f##kup factor in there is just not a good idea, true its one which is fairly easy to overcome but why do it in the first place?

    I'm still a Serving Fire Officer but I do a lot more pointing and directing nowadays, so it has been a while since I've been on a pump. If any other collegues have anything they want to say, or correct, feel free.

    Cheers

    Edit just to clarify - I'm massivley against this type of cache or any on "emergency signage"
    Last edited by The Gaggle; 29th November 2011 at 12:39 PM.

  41. #91
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    Have a look next time you are out and about in a rural area to see how easy to find and how many hydrants are about - you'll be surprised how hard it is.
    That was really why I made my statement many posts ago that I'd be surprised if that was the method used. In the days before we had powerful computers that fit in our pocket and have maps and overlays of almost anything we could want then, yes, a sign by the side of the road was the best, possibly only, way of directing firemen to a hydrant. But today...?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    I'm massivley against this type of cache
    I'm massively against many different types of cache, but we can't and shouldn't have a rule against certain types of cache just because some of us don't like them.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaggle View Post
    I also support moving all the "rule/guidline" and "must/should/will" stuff to another thread!!!!
    The thread is about the proposition of a rule: you can't disassociate the introduction of the rule from its wording. The rule has to be either specific in both intent and wording, possibly requiring another rule later for something very similar, or sufficiently broad to ensure that it resolves this particular issue but is so vague that no-one can understand what it means.

    Despite this thread now being on its seventh page, I think I'm the only person to have actually proposed a form of words. I don't think there's any need for yet another rule but at least I've come up with it .
    Last edited by Alan White; 29th November 2011 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Clarify penultimate paragraph

  42. #92

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    Note to those who will vocally complain that a GC Reviewer is trying to Censor discussion! I HAVE ASKED THAT THE POSTS BE MOVED TO A SEPARATE TOPIC! That's not censorship, just a request to split out a separate discussion into its own Topic to allow it to flow unimpeded!
    I'd taken it as read that we'd already agreed that there is nothing to be said in favour of fake fire hydrant signs. So to discuss the merits or otherwise of such caches seems a bit pointless and I don't think the aim of the consultation is to decide whether or not they should be allowed.

    So, it's the action to be taken that is open to debate. The consensus appears to favour a more generalised approach rather than a specific fire-hydrant-cache ban. But if the wording is agreed by the GAGB committee and included in the current guidelines, it gives rise to the question about who will take action should another case crop up, and how will the GAGB guidelines be used? Or perhaps mis-used?

    As you seem to be rather angry about the subject, perhaps you might start a new thread and suggest a better way forward? I can't think of the title for an alternative thread as this one seems to be staying generally on topic.

  43. #93
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I'd taken it as read that we'd already agreed that there is nothing to be said in favour of fake fire hydrant signs.
    I've agreed no such thing . In my view there's nothing in favour of caches on parking machines, caches bolted into fences, caches inside electrical/gas cabinets, caches in dangerous locations, or caches in muggle-infested places, but I don't go suggesting that all those caches should be banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    So to discuss the merits or otherwise of such caches seems a bit pointless and I don't think the aim of the consultation is to decide whether or not they should be allowed.
    The OP has obviously been very carefully worded: it says "We have been asked to consider a new guideline to cover fake Fire Hydrant signs". It doesn't say what that guideline might be and certainly doesn't suggest allowing or disallowing such caches. Perhaps the discussion would be more productive if it did?

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    how will the GAGB guidelines be used? Or perhaps mis-used?
    I think history tells us the answer to that, at least as far as Groundspeak is concerned .

  44. #94

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I've agreed no such thing . In my view there's nothing in favour of caches on parking machines, caches bolted into fences, caches inside electrical/gas cabinets, caches in dangerous locations, or caches in muggle-infested places, but I don't go suggesting that all those caches should be banned.
    Hmm...yes, but I said that we'd agreed that there was nothing to be said in favour of them, not that we'd agreed that they have to be banned.

    People on here have been trying to illustrate how the fire hydrant sign caches could cause problems but I didn't think we need to discuss that as it seems pretty obvious. Mancunian was arguing that discussing anything else was off-topic.

  45. #95
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I said that we'd agreed that there was nothing to be said in favour of them, not that we'd agreed that they have to be banned.
    OK, I'll be clearer then . I'm not not in favour of them. How's that I like innovative and imaginative hides, possibly because I don't have the imagination to come up with them myself. I applaud cachers who are able to enliven the experience and make me think "Wow, that's clever" when I find such a cache.

    And obviously my tongue-in-cheek quote from the OP was just a little too subtle: it's quite obvious that a consultation on a guideline about fake fire hydrant signs has only one intention .

  46. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    it's quite obvious that a consultation on a guideline about fake fire hydrant signs has only one intention .
    No it isn't.

  47. #97
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martybartfast View Post
    No it isn't.
    Perhaps you could expand on that by saying what you think the intention of the consultation is?

    Even better, perhaps the GAGB committee could say what the purpose of the consultation is?

  48. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Perhaps you could expand on that by saying what you think the intention of the consultation is?
    Well you're the one who thinks it's obvious perhaps you could share your enlightened view with those of us who don't have your insight?

    But here's my (un-cynical) take on it:

    • A communication was initiated by the Fire Service, which resulted in someone (it doesn't matter who) approaching the GAGB with a view to perhaps including something in their 'guidelines'.
    • The GAGB has asked it's members for their thoughts on the matter before it takes any action.
    • There seems to have been a concensus so far as HH said earlier.
    • Hopefully the views of the membership will be taken into account when a decision is made and any action is/isnt taken - I guess we'll find out, but I'm prepared to wait and see before making snide remarks.



    What should the GAGB have done in your view after the initial approach?

    • Ignored the it and done nothing.
    • Decided behind closed doors what they were going to do without asking the members.



    There has been much debate recently during the elections about openness and consultation, and the approach here seems to be addressing both of these points.

    Edit to add: guidelines is quoted 'cos I don't want to go down the whole is it a rule or a guideline sidetrack again.

  49. #99
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    The thread is about the proposition of a rule: you can't disassociate the introduction of the rule from its wording. The rule has to be either specific in both intent and wording, possibly requiring another rule later for something very similar, or sufficiently broad to ensure that it resolves this particular issue but is so vague that no-one can understand what it means.
    It doesn't matter how they are worded - or whether the GAGB call them rules, guidelines, THE COMMANDMENTS, or John, Paul, George and Ringo - because the GAGB is not, so far as I am aware, in the business of reviewing and publishing caches.

    If you have an issue with a reviewer or a cache listing site using the GAGB guidelines as rules, take it up with them, NOT the GAGB!
    Last edited by keehotee; 29th November 2011 at 04:59 PM.

  50. #100
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martybartfast View Post
    Well you're the one who thinks it's obvious perhaps you could share your enlightened view with those of us who don't have your insight?
    I don't think your aggressive tone is either necessary or helpful, but I will try to answer your question.

    GAGB has a long history of making rules: it's the only thing they do. These rules are always made in the aftermath of some problem and they think that "something has to be done", that something always being the prohibition or severe restriction on whatever is believed to have caused the problem.

    The most recent problem was the Wetherby "bomb" after which GAGB hastily introduced a rule which was immediately and roundly condemned as being unworkable and ineffective. The resulting belated consultation massaged the rule into something which was no more effective but was at least workable.

    The next time there's a problem GAGB, all credit to it, launches the consultation first. But the consultation can have only one of two outcomes: introduce a rule or don't introduce a rule. As not introducing a rule means ignoring the problem then that's not a practical option and the consultation can only result in a rule.

    And I'm still the only person to have proposed such a rule, even though I don't think we need one. Why do others not propose their own version of the rule which can then be discussed?

Posting Permissions

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