Thanks Thanks:  9
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Guideline management

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default Guideline management

    If you were elected how would you propose that the GAGB deals with unpopular and/or unworkable guidelines.

    Recent examples being-

    The urban guideline.

    The breaking ground guideline

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    GAGB should describe a best practice approach to cache setting which includes reference to these subjects. The rules should be left to listing sites.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    We should reconsider our guidelines from scratch, with the single-minded emphasis being on creating a minimal set that begs no questions and inspires confidence in the land owners from whom we seek permission to cache.

    It is fine to elaborate on the guidelines and provide what-if scenarios as guidance to our members, but must specifically exclude rules or regulations, which are the remit of the listing sites, if they so wish.

    We should espouse the benefits of having these guidelines, in terms of consent received, to participants in other activities where there is cross-over with Geocaching.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Firstly I would look again at the guidelines and rewite them using my experience in guideline writing form OC UK to do so I would also improve them and use my knowledge from the other side of the fence to make them a better system in general.

    Thanks
    Geocaching Womble (Dominic)
    Last edited by geocaching womble; 18th November 2012 at 10:13 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wombles View Post
    GAGB should describe a best practice approach to cache setting which includes reference to these subjects. The rules should be left to listing sites.
    I've probably cross-posted these thoughts in another of these sub-threads - so apologies in advance but I'm struggling to negotiate the overlaps which seem to be springing up between them :

    Anyway - I don't personally see how the above statement is workable IF GAGB intends to continue to negotiate landowner permisson on behalf of the geocaching community.

    As a landowner - if GAGB negotiated permission with me on the basis of GAGB guidelines, claiming to represent the GB geocaching community and then - when an issue arose - tried to point me in the direction of an individual listing site which didn't fully subscribe to GAGB guidelines to get the issue resolved - I'd promply withdraw that permission - simple as that

    On that basis I think communication and negotiation with all major listing sites is fundamental to guideline review - with the optimum outcome from my perspective being at the very least a set of core guidelines common to all listing sites. Without this I don't see how GAGB can confidently and responsibly claim to represent GB geocachers when negotiating landowner agreements.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Porthcawl S Wales
    Posts
    481

    Default

    The Guidelines were being worked on until some events caused that to stop.

    The rules are set by Groundspeak - the GAGB can only set Guidelines/ Best Practice and even the breaking ground is still unclear IMHO as we were discussing yesterday as I was still unsure on the interpretation of it as you know.

    Lilian

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mollyjak View Post
    The Guidelines were being worked on until some events caused that to stop.

    The rules are set by Groundspeak - the GAGB can only set Guidelines/ Best Practice and even the breaking ground is still unclear IMHO as we were discussing yesterday as I was still unsure on the interpretation of it as you know.

    Lilian
    That doesn't quite fit with my understanding - and I think if one of the objectives of the next committee is to review this issue, I think clarity will be essential.

    Groundspeak sets Groundspeak's guidelines - other listing sites, as far as I know, set their own guidelines.

    GAGB sets other guidelines / suggests best pratice - I think from a GB point of view i.e. the dry stone wall guideline which is of particular relevance to the UK, where such walls are common - but less relevant or completely irrelevant where such walls are not common.

    How much influence GAGB guidelines have on those employed by the major listing sites - or the other way round - I'm not sure.

    It's those sorts of things that I personally think should form the basis of any guideline review.

    I think a useful way forward would be to consider all of the guidelines side-by-side to find places where they already agree - as I expect there will be plenty of them.

    Guidelines which already agree across all sites could form the basis of the core guidelines that all agree to subscribe to. Can't see why anybody would object to this, if those guidelines are already universally accepted.

    Further dialogue might lead to the enhancement of that core set of guidelines so that ultimately landowners can feel highly confident that all geocachers, or at least those who subscribe to the major listing sites, will adhere to certain, hopefully high, standards of conduct - regardless of which listing site(s) they prefer to use.

    Adiitionally, I think this model would allow each listing site to continue to set it's own guidelines above and beyond the core - provided of course the core guidelines were not contravened.

    Could be a win-win-win

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    There was a great deal of debate on whether GAGB had a mandate to put out a set of guidelines (revised into a Guide of "Best Practice") and considerable time and effort was put in by individuals (particularly Tony!) to try and make one size fit all - this was still being worked on over the year - before other events overtook it. One of the main problems was that no matter how well intentioned an organisation is, there will always be :-
    a. Some persons who will ignore all guidelines (best practice)
    b. Some persons who will not bother to read them
    c. Some persons who object to "Being told what to do"
    d. Some dedicated semanticists who will always object to "the wording"
    e. Some "bloody minded" individuals who pick holes just for the sake of it
    So good luck with it who ever wants to take it on :wacko:
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    There was a great deal of debate on whether GAGB had a mandate to put out a set of guidelines (revised into a Guide of "Best Practice") and considerable time and effort was put in by individuals (particularly Tony!) to try and make one size fit all - this was still being worked on over the year - before other events overtook it. One of the main problems was that no matter how well intentioned an organisation is, there will always be :-
    a. Some persons who will ignore all guidelines (best practice)
    b. Some persons who will not bother to read them
    c. Some persons who object to "Being told what to do"
    d. Some dedicated semanticists who will always object to "the wording"
    e. Some "bloody minded" individuals who pick holes just for the sake of it
    So good luck with it who ever wants to take it on :wacko:
    Cool - let's forget about it then.

    What else do we have left with which to reinvent and rejuvenate the GAGB and make it an organisation people will be queueing up to join?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Thumbs up

    I think Palujia's comments illustrate why we need to focus purely on guidelines that support our objective of getting landowner consent. We must expect listing sites to do their own thing if they want to.

    Let Groundspeak trouble itself over 'breaking the ground' - that's too much detail when seeking consent to cache. What impression would a set of fussy and detailed guidelines give a land owner? I'd suggest it implies that we lack confidence, we are scared that we'll do something wrong.... which does not inspire confidence in return and would make consent harder to gain.

    We have to demonstrate confidence, show that we know what we want and know what is reasonable. If the land owner wants to negotiate on the terms - fine - but don't saddle the negotiation with someone else's problem to start with!

    Anything is possible with consent, let's go for the most permissive consent agreements we can get. If a major land owner is comfortable with caches being recessed in some way or other then that's a win for all of us.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    I think Palujia's comments illustrate why we need to focus purely on guidelines that support our objective of getting landowner consent. We must expect listing sites to do their own thing if they want to.

    Let Groundspeak trouble itself over 'breaking the ground' - that's too much detail when seeking consent to cache. What impression would a set of fussy and detailed guidelines give a land owner? I'd suggest it implies that we lack confidence, we are scared that we'll do something wrong.... which does not inspire confidence in return and would make consent harder to gain.

    We have to demonstrate confidence, show that we know what we want and know what is reasonable. If the land owner wants to negotiate on the terms - fine - but don't saddle the negotiation with someone else's problem to start with!

    Anything is possible with consent, let's go for the most permissive consent agreements we can get. If a major land owner is comfortable with caches being recessed in some way or other then that's a win for all of us.
    So obtain consent based on a set of guidelines which are claimed to be adhered to by the entire geocaching community, and then allow listing sites with their own, differing guidelines to authorise placement of caches which contravene those the landowner agreed to, on the basis of that original agreement?

    If you're going for as permissive as possible - why bother with guidelines at all?

    If all that matters is consent then surely it's a simple yes/no question to the landowner?

    Or better still - just leave the guidelines entirely to the listing sites.

    Job done.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Microdot View Post
    So obtain consent based on a set of guidelines which are claimed to be adhered to by the entire geocaching community, and then allow listing sites with their own, differing guidelines to authorise placement of caches which contravene those the landowner agreed to, on the basis of that original agreement?

    If you're going for as permissive as possible - why bother with guidelines at all?

    If all that matters is consent then surely it's a simple yes/no question to the landowner?

    Or better still - just leave the guidelines entirely to the listing sites.

    Job done.
    Our guidelines are needed to demonstrate that we consider the issues from the land owner's perspective and act responsibly. Negotiating without them would be plain cheeky and would be less successful than negotiating with them. Similarly, negotiating with Groundspeak's complex baggage on our back would be less successful than negotiating without it.

    It's about being pragmatic and getting the best outcomes for our association. I don't think we should claim to represent all Geocachers, only our members.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    Our guidelines are needed to demonstrate that we consider the issues from the land owner's perspective and act responsibly. Negotiating without them would be plain cheeky and would be less successful than negotiating with them. Similarly, negotiating with Groundspeak's complex baggage on our back would be less successful than negotiating without it.

    It's about being pragmatic and getting the best outcomes for our association. I don't think we should claim to represent all Geocachers, only our members.
    So when GAGB negotiates landowner permission, the permission granted will only be for GAGB members?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Microdot View Post
    Cool - let's forget about it then.

    What else do we have left with which to reinvent and rejuvenate the GAGB and make it an organisation people will be queueing up to join?
    QED!
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    QED!
    What specifically do you think has been proven?

Posting Permissions

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