GAGB forums

[DrDick&Vick]

The Landowner Agreements that are stored in the GLAD are there for the benefit of any geocacher who wished to use them and therefore avoid the agravation of approaching a landowner who has already agreed that caches may be hidden on his/her/their land.
If you and other geocachers do not wish to take advantage of these then that is your choice and you are quite free to approach each and every landowner on your own.
The New Forest agreement is the only one that really has any restrictions built in but without this agreement the New Forest would not agree to any caches being hidden.
So basically ignore the GLAD and do your own thing as far as getting permission to place a cache where ever you want to.
If you feel so strongly about the restrictions that are being imposed by the reviewers (because the use the guidelines as rules) appeal the the ECofHR or simply stop using Groundspeak's services.

[frosty68]

1. The "all time low" bit was before my time, I seem to have come into caching at a time when the game has matured, yet still has space to evolve further (though It's going to take some doing to convince me scanning QR codes is a good idea, I can see it leading to "scan a QR, that's the cache logged). As such I'm unaware of past difficulties, but I'm not sure that as the situation seems to have improved, the separation of the GAGB and its forum needs to continue. If the need for an independent, central forum is essential then I suggest the FollowTheArrow site is a much more sensible location, as it has no outward affiliation with any caching body, exists purely as a resource for cachers, and I suspect most of us have visited it and understand its value to the community.

2. What rules? I keep on seeing them referred to, but the only place I've seen some is the GS site. Again I'm new here but I've seen discussions regarding the guidelines hosted here, if GS insist on using them as rules then we have a couple of options.
a. Scrap guidelines, let GS decide local issues for us from afar
b. Collaborate to create a set of guidelines which we, as a community, are happy to adhere to. I find it sad that suggesting people don't place caches in drystone walls even needs saying, but apparently not all cachers are sensible or considerate, so it does

[Alan White]

I suggest the FollowTheArrow site is a much more sensible location

Isn't that owned and run by a Groundspeak reviewer?

What rules?

https://www.gagb.org.uk/what-is-geoc...he-guidelines/ and https://www.gagb.org.uk/land-agreements.php

a. Scrap guidelines, let GS decide local issues for us from afar

That's my preference though the first part doesn't lead to the second part. Groundspeak will decide their own rules regardless of what GAGB thinks.

Unfortunately some people think that there always has to be someone in control and that there needs to be a rule for every eventuality (cf. the recent discussions on urban caches and fake signs).

The drystone wall rule is a good example of a bad rule. It was introduced by a specific event, for a specific purpose, to ban a specific type of hiding place. It makes no allowance for the fact that a cache may be placed in a mortared wall and that searching will almost certainly damage that wall: I've seen many examples of this since the arrival of the micro. All that's needed are recommendations such as "respect the environment and its history" and "Excessively vigorous searching may have a negative impact on the environment. Take care to minimise this." (These were taken from https://opencache.uk/ocwiki/index.ph...New_Guidelines which I had a hand in developing. Quite why they're still a draft is a mystery - I'll enquire).

[frosty68]

I believe the arrow site is owned by a GS reviewer, always expecting the best of people (and usually right to do so), it never crossed my mind he wouldn't be open to the idea of hosting a site containing independent thought.

Having looked at the draft rules, erm guidelines over at OC.org (that is different to opencaching.com?!) they seem a sensible list that anyone should be happy to follow. Based upon them I would be fine listing a unsealed glass jar full of chocolates and needles just outside a primary school? Being guidelines and recommendations I guess I can do as I like? Or are they supposed to be quite firmly adhered to, a little like rules?
I must say the rules/guidelines debate does seem a little "much ado over nothing" to me.

That's the first time I've seen opencaching.org.uk, I have seen .com before, and I can imagine a great deal of justifiable vitriol was cast upon garmin when they did that. I just tried the google earth overlay to see what caches were listed there, but it didn't work for me...I guess I need to read some

[nobbynobbs]

Ok, there is a often repeated request for people to change from the inside. So I would like to suggest that the following happens:

The guidelines/rules are removed from this site and placed under the umbrella of Groundspeak either on their site of that of "follow the arrow" No further guidelines or national negotiations are entered into but any such request is passed back to the reviewer for him to negotiate and list.
They can be replaced by a guide to how to place a good cache but not guideline that will be used by a listing site.

The landowner agreements are likewise removed and held by groundspeak and that all future agreements be negotiated under the name of groundspeak so that there exists no room for people to complain that agreements are being made by a group that represents less than 1000 people that affects all cachers.

Then the GAGB do a detailed account of all calls and emails received and establish to which listing site they pertain. If they discover that all/most are regarding groundspeak caches and cachers then I would suggest that this faciltiy is also passed to a groundspeak reviewer to deal with as then it can be handled by someone who has any authority to deal with any problem.


These are three suggestions from inside the organisation that I strongly feel are needed to be discussed and hopefully carried so that the GAGB may return to it's core which is to stand up for the cachers of this country not to impose more and more restrictions upon them.

We will now see whether the calls for reform from inside will get what they have asked for or whether these are ignored.


I do believe that the committee do a large amount of good hard work I just feel that the work should be done by someone else.

Or you could do something really sensible and wait for the new approach to what are now guidelines.

or you can try and destroy the GAGB before this significant change

[DrDick&Vick]

Unfortunately I feel that there are other moves afoot to destroy the association completely.

[trampyjoe]

Unfortunately I feel that there are other moves afoot to destroy the association completely.

As I posted in another thread about starting my own association, therefore I'm now being paranoid, I feel I should be the one to ask ...

Could you please expand on your accusation?

[DrDick&Vick]

Nothing pointing at you I can assure you and I apologise if you thought it was.

[Alan White]

Having looked at the draft rules, erm guidelines over at OC.org (that is different to opencaching.com?!)

Yes. opencaching.org.uk (and .pl, .de and all the others) predate Garmin's opencaching.com. Garmin fell out with Groundspeak and decided to set up their own listing site. No problem there, except that Garmin appropriated the Opencaching name without asking and without taking on the concept. Opencaching is a cacher-led and -run, not-for-profit enterprise hosted by dedicated volunteers who want to provide alternative listing sites for their country.

Being guidelines and recommendations I guess I can do as I like?

A discussion of the detail of OCUK's guidelines is best done on OCUK's forum but, in short, the premise of the recommendations is that cachers are sensible people who don't need to be told not to do x, do y, and who don't think that there needs to be a rule for every tiny detail of what is fundamentally just a silly game.

That said, all the points you mention are covered in OCUK recommendations. Perhaps you need to read them again, more carefully?

[Graculus]

I'm posting this in two threads as reference is made to my my resource site, "follow-the-arrow" and the possibility of me hosting information and I wanted to explain what my site is all about.

When I became a reviewer in July 2008 the GAGB website was in real need of an update, it had guidelines and the GLAD and of course the forums but I felt it didn't offer cachers much more. For example the download page had very little in the way of actual resources for people. We reviewers were using map resources that were publicly available and I wanted to show cachers how to use them to help them when placing their own caches. I was getting enquiries from people about how to use their GPS for paperless caching and where they could find more information for example. So I created various pages on the site, overlays of land areas and several interactive online forms to apply for permission (that are linked to from the GLAD entries by the way). So my site has just grown as I've added more and more pages.

The GAGB site had a major update a while ago and now looks very smart but I have to say it still doesn't offer much more than it did before; the guidelines, GLAD and forum. The download page still has much the same on it. Take an example; you can download Lord Elphs icons but there is no explanation of what they are for or how you use them. I've created a page all about paperless caching including some downloadable guides that explain how to do things. I would point out my day job is writing and delivering technical training courses so doing this sort of thing is easy for me! Should the GAGB have this sort of thing on the site for people? Perhaps that's something for another discussion.

My paperless page brings me to an important point. That page is about paperless caching using www.geocaching.com, not any other listing site. This is because I'm a reviewer with the Groundspeak organisation and I also cache on that site too. I set up my site specifically to provide a resource for caching with geocaching.com. The GAGB works with all the listing sites and all of them can use the GLAD - we certainly do. So would I host the GLAD on my site? The answer is no for two simple reasons. Firstly my site only represents one listing site and I have no connection with any other sites so that would make the GLAD exclusive to geocaching.com in effect. Secondly the site is my own personal creation, I pay the annual hosting charge, I do not get any funding or donations for it. Groundspeak have nothing to do with the site. I created the site to help my fellow cachers, I'm happy to bear the costs. So I can make the personal decision that I don't want to host the GLAD because I wouldn't have time (or inclination) to keep it up to date. I think in that respect the GAGB do an excellent job with it.

The GLAD is an important resource for us reviewers and we appreciate the hard work the GAGB have put into creating it and negotiating the agreements. But if it is to be used by all listing sites then an 'independant' location is important for it. There have been comments that it could be hosted directly by Groundspeak. I'm only a volunteer with that organisation, I'm not employed by them so cannot give any opinion on what they would say to that suggestion but I think the answer would be no again for the reasons given above, it would make it exclusive to Groundspeak and they (or probably us reviewers) would have to maintain it!

Minor edit made to clarify why I was posting in two threads in the first sentence.

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