Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Restricting access to gagb approved caches

  1. #1
    Lassitude Guest

    Default

    Just a thought here- If GAGB get approval for cache placement on an authorities land and they say they only want Geocachers who have signed up to the code of practice at GAGB then should we make caches like this members only on Geocaching.com?

    That way there could be some control over who visits them.

    I know this would really poke a stick in the ants nest at this point but it would seem a sensible way to do things once GAGB has got both feet ont he ground.

    Opinions?

    Thanks

    Chris

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Originally posted by Lassitude@Jun 27 2003, 09:20 PM
    I know this would really poke a stick in the ants nest at this point ...
    And what a big stick...!! h34r:

    It certainly does seem that some control in this situation would either be necessary or at least advisable; I agree with that.

    But:

    To make them GAGB members only, ok fine. But of course that's probably unworkable.

    To make them Geocaching.com members only, in my opinion categorically NO.

    I'm a member of GAGB, but I'm not a member of gc.com simply because money is extremely tight at the moment, and if I had a spare twenty quid I'd use it towards my gas bill or something...

    Banning me from doing GAGB approved caches would change my views on GAGB somewhat...!!

    But that aside, would it really work anyway? Restricting GAGB approved caches to gc.com members wouldn't be the same as restricting them to people who've signed up to GAGB's code of practice.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  3. #3
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    Leaving aside the desirability (or not), unless this is going to become a listing site (which I don't think is the idea), how would it be possible?

    GAGB can tell landowners that "GAGB members will always stick to GAGB guidelines when placing caches", but it can't tell GC.com to restrict access to certain cache pages to GAGB members.

    We all have the option to make our caches available to GC.com members only, but anyone with the spare dosh can join: It doesn't mean that a GC.com member will abide by GAGB guidelines.

    I don't want to rubbish the idea out of hand, but unless it's going to be physically possible thee's no point debating whether we want to do it...

    Paul

  4. #4
    The Bennett Family Guest

    Default

    Our opinion?

    It's a non-starter.

    For all the reasons put so well by Bill D & Paul GOTLG.

    Cheers,
    Gaz.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I think if we are saying local authority 'a' says only GAGB members can place caches, then that dosn't restrict the people who find them!!
    If none GAGB members set a cache in the area it can be removed by the authority as being placed without permission!!
    Hope all this makes sense :huh:
    Every one needs a bigger letterbox!!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Gosport
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Sounds like a Great way of not attracking people to Geocaching
    Geocachers do it by Degrees

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    It needs to be pointed out that this is all mataphorical.

    Nobody has suggested that there is any reality in the scenario being discussed here.

    As a talking point, June and I have to agree that the idea of restricting caches to GAGB members is a non starter.

    And just to confirm, no, we will not be listing caches on this site.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  8. #8
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Postie@Jun 28 2003, 11:41 AM
    I think if we are saying local authority &#39;a&#39; says only GAGB members can place caches, then that dosn&#39;t restrict the people who find them&#33;&#33;
    If none GAGB members set a cache in the area it can be removed by the authority as being placed without permission&#33;&#33;
    The way Local Authorities are likely to work is to say something like:

    "we are happy for caches to to placed on our land as long as such caches meet the guidlines of the GAGB".

    In that way, they are allowing ANYONE to place a cache, they just have to meet some guidelines, that happen to be held by GAGB.

    No different from when someone says "yes, as long as it meets BS123456".

    Paul

  9. #9

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

    Default

    Originally posted by Lassitude@Jun 27 2003, 09:20 PM
    Just a thought here- If GAGB get approval for cache placement on an authorities land and they say they only want Geocachers who have signed up to the code of practice at GAGB then should we make caches like this members only on Geocaching.com?

    That way there could be some control over who visits them.
    To answer Chris&#39; point, it won&#39;t be possible to control who visits caches, whether they are GAGB members, G.com members or anything else. Someone&#39;s ability (and willingness) to pay G.com for membership certainly isn&#39;t any guarantee that they would abide by our guidelines. T&J made the point that we won&#39;t be another cache listing site, so there is no way to control access to the information (trying to do so would result in the GAGB becoming a policing function - this won&#39;t happen). In my view we should steer well clear of this.

    This thread then went on to consider whether caches hidden by non-GAGB members on land approved for GAGB guidelines should be policed. Our guidelines are voluntary and we won&#39;t be removing caches that don&#39;t comply - that would be a decision for the listing website. Of course, a land-owner may decide to remove any caches that aren&#39;t clearly following the guidelines (GAGB member or not) - that is and would always be their decision.

    Dave

  10. #10
    Lassitude Guest

    Default

    Sorry I misunderstood what the subcribers only option is when you set up a cache. I was under the impression it would allow you to restrict access to teams not stop non paying Geocachers from seeing it. That would be unfair.

    A few points:


    1. To explain what I was getting at: A hypothetical question: A particularly sensitive landowner allows us to place a cache on their land as long as the visitors abide by a specific set of rules when visitng the land. How do we help convince the landowner that Geocachers will behave in that way(Based ont he fact that not all Geocachers will sign up to GAGB)? - Admittedly details of these rules could be placed in the cache description but quite often decriptions are not read or forgotten.

    2. A valid point was made by the Wombles. A lot of the responsibility of responsible Geocaching is placed on the shoulders of the person placing the cache.

    3. It is worth thrashing things out here as opposed to starting a fight on Geocaching.com and would like to thank the previous posters for their comments.

    4. I would like to see things get moving for this assocaition. I have a cache I ready to place on Forestry Commission Land very near to me. The sooner we get consent from some of the larger land oweners - English Nature, FC, National Trust the better. I know that some caches near to me are placed on land without consent from the landowner. In fact I know there are caches palced on FC land near to me as well. The danger is that if the hobby keeps growing as it is then these landowners will become aware and get one of their employees to check Geocaching.com to see if there are any infingements. If that happens we lose a face before we even get around the table with these people.

    Cheers

    Chris

  11. #11
    THE BRAMBLERS Guest

    Default

    Originally quoted by Lassitude
    The sooner we get consent from some of the larger land oweners - English Nature, FC, National Trust the better.
    Just to let you know, we have already re-opened negotiations with FE. This came about because some of our (HCC) sites are jointly managed with them.

  12. #12
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by gavotteers@Jun 28 2003, 11:50 AM
    Sounds like a Great way of not attracking people to Geocaching
    Totally agree ... and also a great way of not attracting people to GAGB&#33;

Posting Permissions

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