Landowner database

[nobbynobbs]

Should the GAGB continue to hold the landowner database and continue to negotiate new agreements?

Or should they be hosted on the relevant listing site that they apply to, in effect, groundspeak. Meaning that further negotiations will be under the name of those people who use that listing site.

[DrDick&Vick]

surely the aggreements are there for use by cachers who use all listings sites

I am sure landowners really want to deal with several organisations instead of just one

[Clipper247]

I might be being a bit daft, but what benefit would there be to Groundspeak hosting the landowner agreements?

[Jacaru]

The GAGB should continue to negotiate as they have done a stirling job so far.

[Andalusite]

Groundspeak do not host local landowner agreements.

If the GAGB were to do away with the GLAD alternative arrangements would need to be made by responsible local cachers.

[The Hornet]

Whatever the merits, or otherwise, about representation, rules/guidelines or whatever I think the GLAD is a separate issue. To my mind it is a useful repository of information which can be accessed by anyone and not just GAGB members.

I am guessing that most, if not all, agreements apply to GEOCACHES not listing sites in the view of Landowners. If this is the case then it would be wholly inappropriate to have them hosted on a single listing site.

[nobbynobbs]

Isn't that part of the issue. The agreements have been made by the gagb and other people making it sound like they have authority to negotiate for all the listing sites and all the people using those sites.
The landowner believes he has an agreement with a fully representing group that can censure and remove caches.
The truth is that no such authority or power exists. How many of the agreements actually apply to the other listing sites how many are valid at all.

If only one site uses them, if only one site has any authority to censure a cacher or demand a cache is removed....then agreements should be made in its name and held with it not the gagb.
That site, just like the guidelines, likes to hide behind the excuse of," its not our fault its in their agreement"

[trampyjoe]

A landowner isn't going to want the hassle of deciding which plastic box/ammo can they allow to be hidden on their land.

If the agreements are being used by other listing sites and the GAGB isn't just a slave to groundspeak, then the people that run the other listing sites need to be made aware of the situation.

The GAGB should seek, as a national organisation for all cachers, to include all listing sites within the landowner agreement.

[keehotee]

The GAGB should seek, as a national organisation for all cachers, to include all listing sites within the landowner agreement.

I might be wrong (as often happens), but none of the landowner agreements I've had a hand in establishing make any mention of particular listing sites. They have been made on behalf of the GAGB, and refer to "geocaches" without specifying where - or even if - they are listed online.

[trampyjoe]

I might be wrong (as often happens), but none of the landowner agreements I've had a hand in establishing make any mention of particular listing sites. They have been made on behalf of the GAGB, and refer to "geocaches" without specifying where - or even if - they are listed online.

oops didn't quote - I was refering to nobbynobbs' comment (in bold for the important parts)

The agreements have been made by the gagb and other people making it sound like they have authority to negotiate for all the listing sites and all the people using those sites.
The landowner believes he has an agreement with a fully representing group that can censure and remove caches.
The truth is that no such authority or power exists. How many of the agreements actually apply to the other listing sites how many are valid at all.