Discussions around where requests for guidelines come from

[Lord Boogie]

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.

+1

But would just like to clarify who asked the GAGB to consider making it a rule? I am presuming a GC.com reviewer. I would be interested to know also why this has been requested secretly? In the interest of openness it may be beneficial to post the communication in this thread.

This was raised on the GAGB facebook page initially. Or it could have been the reviewers facebook page, 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

A geocaching.com reviewer then pointed out to the GAGB that GC had banned them in South Wales.

There really isn't anything more than that.

To clarify once more GAGB publish guidelines not rules.

[MBFace]

+1

But would just like to clarify who asked the GAGB to consider making it a rule? I am presuming a GC.com reviewer. I would be interested to know also why this has been requested secretly? In the interest of openness it may be beneficial to post the communication in this thread.

Getting totally pi33ed off with members of the East Midlands caching community trying to sabotage GAGB. Good night.

[Lord Boogie]

Getting totally pi33ed off with members of the East Midlands caching community trying to sabotage GAGB. Good night.

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.

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.

Why don't you go and read the pages on Facebook where it was raised. Not by the GAGB not by a reviewer.

Anyone can ask for a guideline.

This is on a public page of the GAGB's forum you don't even have to be a member of the GAGB to see it. Hardly behind closed doors is it?

[Lord Boogie]

Why don't you go and read the pages on Facebook where it was raised. Not by the GAGB not by a reviewer.

Anyone can ask for a guideline.

This is on a public page of the GAGB's forum you don't even have to be a member of the GAGB to see it. Hardly behind closed doors is it?

I have had a quick skim on the GAGB facebook page but can not see it, can you post a link? No need to be rude :wacko: the OP was the first I heard of it. As I say in the interests of openness making all the facts clear is good sense. It allows an objective viewpoint to be reached.

I agree anyone can ask for a guideline but you raise another point. How do we as an organisation moderate ourselves so not to look like knee jerk politics??

[Lord Boogie]

Come off it, we're talking safety here as anyone who has looked at the Facebook topic will already know.

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.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

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".

The point being that the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service contacted Groundspeak and requested that "False Fire Hydrants" not be used! Their reasoning being that it could cause a delay in getting a water supply, in a Emergency.

It would seem that contrary to your belief, they do actively use the signs to find the Hydrants.

The information on the Hydrant is (I'm happy to be corrected by a Fire Officer over this) Size of Pipe and Distance to the Connection from the sign.

As for someone having a dig about a GC Reviewer contacting the GAGB.
The issue was raised by a member of the community to other members in a public discussion location, about a specific cache. Someone then contacted the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, who then contacted Groundspeak. Groundspeak contacted the local Reviewers, who then contacted the GAGB.

No agenda on anyone with "Commercial Interests", no agenda by a GC Reviewer. The agenda comes directly from the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, expressing a genuine concern on their behalf. Does that answer the finger pointing at Groundspeak?

Any person who is negative about not using False Hydrant Signs, please contact your local Fire and Rescue Service, and ask them for their opinions on Geocachers putting out False Hydrant Signs, as part of a game.

Groundspeak have actioned a request off one Professional Fire and Rescue Service after someone who is or was a serving Fire Service officer, contacted them with his concerns. As they are the Professionals in this area, why should we who are not dispute their concern that the False Signs could cause a delay.

So as some would believe and finger point. It's not GC Reviewers trying to put into place a "Rule" applicable to "All" Listing Sites. Its a Emergency Service, who wish to see a Rule put in place. Is that a "Political" Knee Jerk or a attempt to avoid a member of a Emergency Crew from being delayed due to a False Hydrant sign?

It's interesting to note that Mid and West Wales Fire And Rescue Service covers a large part of GC's South Wales Region, that means their area borders on to at least 4 other Fire Service areas, so that means crews can be tasked into out of Area locations in Emergencies, not only in Wales but also into England and vice versa. Those Crews will be highly reliant on Hydrant Signs in unfamiliar areas, so false information could cause them serious issues.

Deci

[Lord Boogie]

Not sure how to do links. It's in UK & Ireland GC Reviewers & Community Tea Bar and posted by Terry Ryan.

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!

[Lord Boogie]

The point being that the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service contacted Groundspeak and requested that "False Fire Hydrants" not be used! Their reasoning being that it could cause a delay in getting a water supply, in a Emergency.

It would seem that contrary to your belief, they do actively use the signs to find the Hydrants.

The information on the Hydrant is (I'm happy to be corrected by a Fire Officer over this) Size of Pipe and Distance to the Connection from the sign.

As for someone having a dig about a GC Reviewer contacting the GAGB.
The issue was raised by a member of the community to other members in a public discussion location, about a specific cache. Someone then contacted the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, who then contacted Groundspeak. Groundspeak contacted the local Reviewers, who then contacted the GAGB.

No agenda on anyone with "Commercial Interests", no agenda by a GC Reviewer. The agenda comes directly from the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, expressing a genuine concern on their behalf. Does that answer the finger pointing at Groundspeak?

Any person who is negative about not using False Hydrant Signs, please contact your local Fire and Rescue Service, and ask them for their opinions on Geocachers putting out False Hydrant Signs, as part of a game.

Groundspeak have actioned a request off one Professional Fire and Rescue Service after someone who is or was a serving Fire Service officer, contacted them with his concerns. As they are the Professionals in this area, why should we who are not dispute their concern that the False Signs could cause a delay.

So as some would believe and finger point. It's not GC Reviewers trying to put into place a "Rule" applicable to "All" Listing Sites. Its a Emergency Service, who wish to see a Rule put in place. Is that a "Political" Knee Jerk or a attempt to avoid a member of a Emergency Crew from being delayed due to a False Hydrant sign?

It's interesting to note that Mid and West Wales Fire And Rescue Service covers a large part of GC's South Wales Region, that means their area borders on to at least 4 other Fire Service areas, so that means crews can be tasked into out of Area locations in Emergencies, not only in Wales but also into England and vice versa. Those Crews will be highly reliant on Hydrant Signs in unfamiliar areas, so false information could cause them serious issues.

Deci

So it was you then, why didn't you just say so?

I have had a quick skim on the GAGB facebook page but can not see it, can you post a link? No need to be rude :wacko: the OP was the first I heard of it. As I say in the interests of openness making all the facts clear is good sense. It allows an objective viewpoint to be reached.

I agree anyone can ask for a guideline but you raise another point. How do we as an organisation moderate ourselves so not to look like knee jerk politics??

Not being rude, just asking you to gather your facts first. I can get rude if you like.

Hmm why do you think we opened this thread if not to avoid knee jerk policies. Politics I aint interested in

[Brenin Tegeingl]

So it was you then, why didn't you just say so?

Actually No it wasn't, I was copied in by Groundspeak, and had read the original comments on Facebook and seen the cache which created the issue.

Because I was copied in and had seen the the several FB topics, I was able to provide more background information.


Deci

Discussions around where requests for guidelines come from moved to this thread.

[Lord Boogie]

Discussions around where requests for guidelines come from moved to this thread.

Why don't you open a thread to post new requests and have it as a sticky. New members could see what has already been requested. Not suggesting that origins must be added but when it is requested by a public body or commercial organisation it should be stated as so.

[Lord Boogie]

Actually No it wasn't, I was copied in by Groundspeak, and had read the original comments on Facebook and seen the cache which created the issue.

Because I was copied in and had seen the the several FB topics, I was able to provide more background information.


Deci

So at least I know it was groundspeak.

[Andalusite]

Actually it was me.

The South and West Wales Fire and Rescue service complained to Groundspeak.

Groundspeak contacted me and Deci as the reviewers of the areas covered by SWWFARS and informed us of the complaint and directed us to cease publishing such caches in their area of juristriction.

I then contacted the GAGB Committee to inform them of what had happened and to ask their opinion of what (if anything) else might need to be done.


Hence the consultation exercise.



I apologise for not contributing to this thread sooner but I have only just noticed it.


From where I'm sitting there is no conspiracy or agenda, merely a listing site's reviewers loading with the locally elected Caching organisation.



Regards



Andalusite

[Andalusite]

That should be liasing not loading.

The pitfalls of smartphones and predictive bloody text!

[smudger105e]

Getting totally pi33ed off with members of the East Midlands caching community trying to sabotage GAGB. Good night.

And who might that be? Me? Jacaru? Paulija? Ve8? Lord Boogie? Sven? JayJayBee8? Happy Humphrey? Border Caz? None of the above?

There are lots of East Midlands cachers on here you know, and not all on the above list are members of EMcache...

Kindly refrain from making sweeping statements that may include me. If you have criticism of me personally, I would appreciate any comments be directed at me.

Thank you.

Could we all step away from the brink please and work together for the good of our pass-time.

[smudger105e]

Despite my previous post, I agree with Mongoose. back on topic would be a good idea.

[mollyjak]

The point being that the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service contacted Groundspeak and requested that "False Fire Hydrants" not be used! Their reasoning being that it could cause a delay in getting a water supply, in a Emergency.

It would seem that contrary to your belief, they do actively use the signs to find the Hydrants.

The information on the Hydrant is (I'm happy to be corrected by a Fire Officer over this) Size of Pipe and Distance to the Connection from the sign.

As for someone having a dig about a GC Reviewer contacting the GAGB.
The issue was raised by a member of the community to other members in a public discussion location, about a specific cache. Someone then contacted the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, who then contacted Groundspeak. Groundspeak contacted the local Reviewers, who then contacted the GAGB.

No agenda on anyone with "Commercial Interests", no agenda by a GC Reviewer. The agenda comes directly from the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, expressing a genuine concern on their behalf. Does that answer the finger pointing at Groundspeak?

Any person who is negative about not using False Hydrant Signs, please contact your local Fire and Rescue Service, and ask them for their opinions on Geocachers putting out False Hydrant Signs, as part of a game.

Groundspeak have actioned a request off one Professional Fire and Rescue Service after someone who is or was a serving Fire Service officer, contacted them with his concerns. As they are the Professionals in this area, why should we who are not dispute their concern that the False Signs could cause a delay.

So as some would believe and finger point. It's not GC Reviewers trying to put into place a "Rule" applicable to "All" Listing Sites. Its a Emergency Service, who wish to see a Rule put in place. Is that a "Political" Knee Jerk or a attempt to avoid a member of a Emergency Crew from being delayed due to a False Hydrant sign?

It's interesting to note that Mid and West Wales Fire And Rescue Service covers a large part of GC's South Wales Region, that means their area borders on to at least 4 other Fire Service areas, so that means crews can be tasked into out of Area locations in Emergencies, not only in Wales but also into England and vice versa. Those Crews will be highly reliant on Hydrant Signs in unfamiliar areas, so false information could cause them serious issues.

Deci

I know well the S Wales cacher who is a retired Fire Officer. He brought his concerns out for discussion after finding a cache hidden in such a way in S Wales.

Would Lord Boogie like to take this to a possible scenario in which the false information led to incorrect action being taken in the event of a fire and any resulting deaths?
Whoever??? Whatever??? it has been brought to attention and it needs to be resolved before the possible death of a child, man or woman!!


I knew about this weeks ago and who it was reported to.