Thanks Thanks:  41
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 75 of 75

Thread: Groundbreaking Guidelines

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hinckley
    Posts
    90

    Default

    The reviewers are in a very tough place - they are volunteers who do sterling work but they have to toe the corporate line of whichever listing organisation they "work" for.

    The listing company is in a difficult position as they have to try to deal with every eventuality that a CO can ever think of. Fundamentally, I have no issues with the wording of the current guidelines as they have been a modification of pre-existing guidelines and I am sure that through open discussion and relevent debate that they will be changed again in the future. No "governing" body of a sport has *EVER* got the wording of their rules/guidelines correct the first time.

    The issue I have with it is the inconsistency. The guideline has *always* been "no burying" but there are very famous caches such as ET#1 which is very clearly buried. Is a piece of desert any different than a piece of the UK ?

    All I am asking for (and hope to get) is a consistent message which COs and finders can deal with *and* which is consistently implemented throughout the world (as much as any rule can be). That would help me as a finder to know that a cache I came to met/did not meet the guidelines and it would mean that no-one could chastise the reviewers or the listing company as they could point at a consistently implemented rule.

    I understand that there are caches out there and it could be that the listing company decide that certain caches are grandfathered in or that a cache has specific landowner permission to do it.

    We are all supposed to have landowner permission and I cannot see how, if the landowner agrees to the "burying" of a cache, how the listing company can refuse the listing (apart from the obvious !) as long as all local and international laws are adhered to.

    There are so many caches out there that could be in breach of the guidelines - caches in trees can harm the environment as people break branches etc, caches in rivers can lead to damage to riverbanks etc, caches in "open" spaces lead to geotrails being created which harm the environment. Does that mean we should report all of these ?

    The main point is consistency as well as a reasoned debate

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tares Clan View Post
    All I am asking for (and hope to get) is a consistent message which COs and finders can deal with *and* which is consistently implemented throughout the world (as much as any rule can be). That would help me as a finder to know that a cache I came to met/did not meet the guidelines and it would mean that no-one could chastise the reviewers or the listing company as they could point at a consistently implemented rule.
    I generally agree with this - it's the fudge factor, the blurry edges and grey zones which lead to confusion, misunderstanding, upset and conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tares Clan View Post
    We are all supposed to have landowner permission and I cannot see how, if the landowner agrees to the "burying" of a cache, how the listing company can refuse the listing (apart from the obvious !) as long as all local and international laws are adhered to.
    Simple - the owner of the listing site gets to control what's on there and generally bases its choices on the guidelines they have then in effect. It's their website - they can do whatever they like with it. They are under no obligation to publish ANY cache at all if they don't feel like it

    The cache could have the blessing of the landowner, the local council, parliament or even the Queen - and still the listing site is well within its rights not to publish it on their site if they so choose

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hinckley
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Microdot View Post
    I generally agree with this - it's the fudge factor, the blurry edges and grey zones which lead to confusion, misunderstanding, upset and conflict.
    And that is why the guideline/rule has to be consistently implemented and enforced. If there is consistency, the grey areas will become sharper black and then the guideline can be enhanced again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Microdot View Post
    Simple - the owner of the listing site gets to control what's on there and generally bases its choices on the guidelines they have then in effect. It's their website - they can do whatever they like with it. They are under no obligation to publish ANY cache at all if they don't feel like it

    The cache could have the blessing of the landowner, the local council, parliament or even the Queen - and still the listing site is well within its rights not to publish it on their site if they so choose
    Which is why I said "apart from the obvious!"

    However, the listing sites business model is based on active participation and continual growth through new members and new caches. If people feel disillusioned then they *may* go to an alternative listing company - that has already happened in this case.

    I fully realise that GS/GC are the biggest player in the market but companies such as Nokia were the biggest player in the mobile phone market and they did not listen to their customers and lost out - the business world has many examples of this.

  4. #54
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.

    My opinion won't be popular (it never is ) but reading this thread makes me think why was this not addressed when the guideline was changed a few months back??? - it's a little late in the day to be complaining/lobbying now

    Secondly I assume all that the caches concerned were published after the guideline was clarified? If so I'm afraid to say that I agree with them being TD'd.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tares Clan View Post
    Which is why I said "apart from the obvious!"
    Which makes your earlier response even more confusing - as you seem to be saying that you can't see the obvious?

    Either that or what YOU mean by obvious isn't obvious to me - or probably to anyone else who isn't gifted with the power telepathy

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tares Clan View Post
    However, the listing sites business model is based on active participation and continual growth through new members and new caches. If people feel disillusioned then they *may* go to an alternative listing company - that has already happened in this case.

    I fully realise that GS/GC are the biggest player in the market but companies such as Nokia were the biggest player in the mobile phone market and they did not listen to their customers and lost out - the business world has many examples of this.
    I'd say this is a non-issue

    I'm willing to accept as most likely what's already been stated - most people are happy with the guideline or at least not affected / bothered by it.

    If a few people want to go over to other listing sites I don't see that making a big impact.*

    If recent events around here are anything to go by, people are leaving the other listing sites and coming over to GC - we've had caches in the area delisted from other sites and brought over to GC, so I'd say GC are fairly comfortable in the #1 slot.

    *Edit to add - and TBH if their displeasure at the guidelines is likely to lead, directly or indirectly, to outright abuse directed at the volunteer reviewers and the protagonists are happier elsewhere then c'est la vie as far as I'm concerned
    Last edited by Team Microdot; 9th September 2012 at 12:59 PM.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bradford or where ever ive parked the geotruck
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Microdot View Post
    Which makes your earlier response even more confusing - as you seem to be saying that you can't see the obvious?

    Either that or what YOU mean by obvious isn't obvious to me - or probably to anyone else who isn't gifted with the power telepathy



    I'd say this is a non-issue

    I'm willing to accept as most likely what's already been stated - most people are happy with the guideline or at least not affected / bothered by it.

    If a few people want to go over to other listing sites I don't see that making a big impact.*

    If recent events around here are anything to go by, people are leaving the other listing sites and coming over to GC - we've had caches in the area delisted from other sites and brought over to GC, so I'd say GC are fairly comfortable in the #1 slot.

    *Edit to add - and TBH if their displeasure at the guidelines is likely to lead, directly or indirectly, to outright abuse directed at the volunteer reviewers and the protagonists are happier elsewhere then c'est la vie as far as I'm concerned
    It's kind of difficult to know whether you speak for Groundspeak or GAGB. Maybe that the main problem.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by team mx View Post
    It's kind of difficult to know whether you speak for Groundspeak or GAGB. Maybe that the main problem.
    Sorry - you've lost me completely now

    Main problem?

    Problem how?

    Problem for whom?

    I speak for neither Groundspeak or GAGB - just myself

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Bradford or where ever ive parked the geotruck
    Posts
    25

    Default

    The problem that Groundspeak and GAGB gave blended together.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by team mx View Post
    The problem that Groundspeak and GAGB gave blended together.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ve8 View Post
    I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.
    I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness. Surely we all know what a buried cache is? It's certainly nothing to do with a cache held in place by a spike, or placed in a small tube sunk into the ground.

    Groundspeak have always said that if you needed a pointy tool to dig a hole for the cache then it's buried; and that seemed to explain it well enough. Unfortunately I guess that someone managed to argue that as they had scraped away soil with their hands it was technically not "buried".

    I think it's a simple case of misunderstanding the revised wording, which to me is merely a botched attempt to clarify the word "buried" without explaining what is meant.

  11. #61
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness.
    Maybe because if you simply prohibit "buried" caches some joker will dig a hole, sink a 25 gallon drum into the hole, and cover it with a cleverly constructed lid.
    They'll argue that it's not buried - you can see the lid, it's just in a hole....

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I'd rather that the guideline prohibit buried caches instead of this confusing "breaking ground" silliness. Surely we all know what a buried cache is? It's certainly nothing to do with a cache held in place by a spike, or placed in a small tube sunk into the ground.

    Groundspeak have always said that if you needed a pointy tool to dig a hole for the cache then it's buried; and that seemed to explain it well enough. Unfortunately I guess that someone managed to argue that as they had scraped away soil with their hands it was technically not "buried".

    I think it's a simple case of misunderstanding the revised wording, which to me is merely a botched attempt to clarify the word "buried" without explaining what is meant.
    Sorry HH I know you "believe" that I personally misinterpreted the interpretation, but the interpretation was one as explained by a number of my colleagues from around the world, in the Reviewers Private forum!

    So not "my" interpretation, but one based on the opinions of those which a huge amount of experience between them, in interpreting the Guidelines!

    So Reviewer, who have put in more time in the role than I have hmy:, agreed with the interpretation!

    Could we see a rewording of the Buried Guideline, who knows . The Guidelines are a constantly evolving entity, ones that evolve to take in the experiences and lessons learnt. Are the Guidelines perfect? Well no, and they will never be. Will there be disagreements about the implementation of them? Yes because we are all human, but the Reviewer Community do discuss the meaning and implementation of the Guidelines on a virtually constant basis. So it is not a case of one or 2 deciding that a specific interpretation is valid. Rather a large Group of experienced people, who can get further guidance off Groundspeak, in regards to the interpretation in regards to specific wording.

    Deci


    PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines!Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.
    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

  13. #63

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines!Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.
    The guideline now needs revising in that case as it seems to say something that it doesn't mean. It's not a matter of not agreeing with your interpretation; there seems to be no interpretation needed.

    It should not be in the section about "Buried Caches" as it's clearly NOT about burying caches at all. No-one is claiming (for instance) that a cache which has a spike attached to anchor it in place is "buried", because that would be nonsense. It's above the surface of the ground and may well be in plain sight.

    And it's not up to us to find out where you got the interpretation from; if you don't mention it, then it's reasonable to suppose that it's merely your own opinion. After all, we can't see the reviewer's private forum.

    But now you've explained where you got the interpretation from, perhaps you'd be kind enough to expand on the reason for it? In other words, if I placed a cache and to make sure that the impact on the local environment was minimised I also attached it to the ground; for instance, via some sort of spike and clip arrangement, why would that be seen as reprehensible? Or if I built up a couple of inches of sand around the box to keep it from sliding away, how will that cause severe problems such that the cache has to be disabled?

    We can all see that if you buried a cache it would be bad, because people would then start carrying spades and trowels and if they couldn't find a cache might start digging up the area. So we can understand the "no buried caches" rule. But what about the new "no breaking the surface" rule? On the face of it the rule has no basis in common sense and will cause most caches to be disabled (except that we know that it won't be enforced - so what's it all about?).

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ve8 View Post
    I don't agree with the revised guideline but the new text appears clear cut (to me at least) and for once its also nice to see groundspeak post unambiguous guidelines.

    My opinion won't be popular (it never is ) but reading this thread makes me think why was this not addressed when the guideline was changed a few months back??? - it's a little late in the day to be complaining/lobbying now

    Secondly I assume all that the caches concerned were published after the guideline was clarified? If so I'm afraid to say that I agree with them being TD'd.

    Some did try to question it and where ignored. Few made a issue at the time only shouted when it affected them.

  15. #65

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Some did try to question it and where ignored. Few made a issue at the time only shouted when it affected them.
    Well, if this "no buried caches" rule is being implemented as strictly and uncompromisingly as it seems then I'll have to go out and retrieve several of my caches (none, I hasten to add, is buried, thus demonstrating how well-written the rule is!).

    Is this how it's meant to work? I'm still at a loss to know what harm they are doing, and the discussion seems to be a bit light on explanations about the reasons for the new "no ground attachment" part.


    N.B. I hadn't heard of it until the discussion hit the forum; how are we meant to debate an upcoming new rule if there's no consultation first? I'd have suggested different wording to make the intention of the rule clear (as opposed to encouraging various interpretations when there seems to be no sense in the most literal interpretation).

  16. #66

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    It was posted by the reviewers, not as a consultation though. Done deal forget having a opinion.

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hinckley
    Posts
    90

    Default

    As I have said before, it is about consistency for me. I would think that this would break the guidelines as (to me), ground has been broken and the cache is buried.

    Click for a bigger view

    Of course, is it is OK as this cache is number one in a series that has been highlighted in Latitude 47 ?


    Now it could be that this has special permission from Nevada as it brings a lot of revenue to the Highway but if the guideline states (and always has done) that no burying is allowed, this has to be a special case which tptb have agreed to.

    I fully realise that the guidelines are evolving and that no organisation will ever get it right first time but it is the lack of consistency which is causing the issue (IMHO) and this leads to people interpreting the guidelines in a different manner.

    I have never (and hope to never have to) challenged what any reviewer has said as they have to work with the guidelines which they are given. However, I do not think that this should preclude having open debate about the impact a particular guideline is having and as has been stated, we have no access to the reviewers forum and can only go by statements which have been made elsewhere.

    Personally, I think it is very healthy to have these discussions irrespective of what the final outcome is (after all GS make the rules for their listing site) - the important thing is that we see how/why a decision has been made; there will always be people who disagree with things but again that is healthy - if people did not challenge things, the world would be a very different place.

  18. #68

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    That's a trackable, not a cache. I'm not sure whether trackables can be buried; I don't think there's a rule against it. In any case, how would you know whether that was sunk into the ground or whether there was a convenient hole that the cache placer utilised? I once placed a cache in such a hole; it looked like I'd made a hole in the ground but I never did, I just happened to have a container that snugly fitted into an existing hole. Of course, if I'd then placed earth over the cache it would indeed be buried.
    But this rule isn't about buried caches, but the ones that are stuck into the ground in some way, such as on a small spike.

    N.B. Now that you've shown the tracking number we can all log it, if we feel so inclined!

    I agree
    that the important thing is that we see how/why a decision has been made
    ...but that doesn't seem to happen with Groundspeak nowadays. From reviewers' silence on this topic, I guess that they weren't furnished with an explanation for this rule either.
    Last edited by Happy Humphrey; 1st October 2012 at 11:49 AM.

  19. #69

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Hinckley
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    That's a trackable, not a cache. I'm not sure whether trackables can be buried;
    It is actually

    Quote Originally Posted by http://coord.info/GC2ZK7J
    This is a Letter Box Hybrid
    Another couple of photos from the gallery show that you need to open the trap and get it out:

    Click for a bigger view and

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    But this rule isn't about buried caches, but the ones that are stuck into the ground in some way, such as on a small spike.
    In this specific case, it is about the use of a small spike but the rule has always said that a cache should not be buried and I am pointing out the inconsistency of it - what about sprinkler caches in the US as well ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    N.B. Now that you've shown the tracking number we can all log it, if we feel so inclined!
    Anyone could do that anyway as I have simply linked to the gallery page of the cache. If the CO does not want it logging, they should remove this photo (and plenty of others as well!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I agree
    ...but that doesn't seem to happen with Groundspeak nowadays. From reviewers' silence on this topic, I guess that they weren't furnished with an explanation for this rule either.
    But Deci has stated that a discussion has gone in the reviewers forum which can only be seen as a good thing. Maybe by the fact that we are discussing it here may lead to Deci/other UK reviewers to put a question about consistency to the other reviewers and if they agree that there is a lack of consistency, they (the group of worldwide reviewers) can then bring it to attention of GS.

  20. #70

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Tares Clan View Post
    It is actually
    It's rather confusing, then. I found it here; http://coord.info/TB4H3DH, where it says;
    About This Item

    This is our 2nd attempt at having a nice container to welcome cachers to the famous E.T. Highway Mega Trail.
    The original container (which was beautifully airbrushed and can be seen in several of the early gallery pictures on the cache page) was stolen by someone who felt it would make a great souvenir.
    We've put a little effort into securing this new container in place. We know if someone really wants it, they'll get it. But hopefully what we've done will serve as a good deterent.
    But it doesn't matter too much.

    On your main point, clearly a cache secured in place by a spike isn't buried, nor is the more common tupperware box slightly seated in a hollow. So under the previous "buried cache" rule they were allowable, as they aren't buried. Now we have the "breaking the surface" rule they are outlawed, as they break the surface.

    Can you explain why this rule has been brought in? What problem is it trying to address? No-one is going to respect a rule that hasn't been explained.
    Last edited by Happy Humphrey; 1st October 2012 at 07:12 PM.

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    I've had a response from Groundspeak to my request for clarification. They have rewritten this placement guideline:

    Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely. If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.
    Copied directly from the Groundspeak Guidelines here


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  22. #72

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    I've resisted getting sucked into this debate because to me, Geocaching is a lot more than Groundspeak, and if Groundspeak want to wrap extra layers of red tape around their listing site it is their perogative to do so. Nobody is obliging geocachers to use Groundspeak.

    In my view, it is the geocachers who are the geocaching community, not the listing sites. It should be the geocachers who organise themselves and create a common sense set of guidelines to enhance their reputation and reduce the chances of the hobby being brought in to disrepute.

    This is precisely what brought GAGB into existence, and I expect, numerous other national and regional geocaching organisations too. Dave Edwards (The Wombles) and Dave Palmer (Deciangi) have done more then anyone else ever have to get permissive caching agreements in place under the auspices of GAGB.

    In my view, this is the right way, but the fact that GAGB membership isn't a 'no brainer' to most geocachers is mostly due to the fact that Groundspeak have a virtual stranglehold on the hobby and geocachers' attention is more naturally drawn to them than to GAGB. :wacko:

    So thank you Dave for raising the issue of Groundspeak's "breaking ground" rule with them on behalf of GAGB.

    Now that it appears that a greater degree of common sense has been restored, can we turn our thoughts to selling the value of GAGB to the UK caching community?

  23. #73

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I suspect the GAGB had ****** all influence on this.

  24. #74

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Is the GAGB going to spread the word via other media like Facebook where there are 832 followers to their page compared to the miniscule numbers who visit the forum?

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Mendips, Somerset
    Posts
    2,781

    Default

    I was going to post it on facebook yesterday and then spotted that Mrs B already had, so didn't.

    However, I have just realised that was in the Geocaching UK Facebook group rather than the GAGB group .... so will add something later.
    GAGB member since 2005
    GAGB Committee member 2010 to 2016 (Chair 2012 to 2015)
    UK Mega Event Chairman 2009 (Weston-super-Mare)


Posting Permissions

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