I posted a question for the committee candidates about time commitments to the GAGB. The responses were interesting and do illustrate this game we play is run by volunteers who devote as much time as they can to it (and that includes me as a volunteer with Geocaching HQ).

I wanted to share my thoughts about the GLAD and get other opinions too. First though I want to explain how we use these agreements when reviewing.

When a cache is submitted for review we check the location on the MAGIC map (UK), the Inspire map (Wales) and Pastmap (Scotland). These show us the main areas where caches need permission - Woodland Trust, National Trust, nature reserves, SAM's etc. We also have a database, hosted by Geocaching HQ that we store other maps in. It is automatically checked and if the cache is in an area we need to be aware of it flags up a warning - either no caching allowed or that it needs specific permission. This database is for those individual landowners we need to know about who either allow or don't allow caching. These maps are essential to help us review. All the landowner agreements I've worked on have such maps. I've either got them directly from the landowner, downloaded them from their website or created my own by hand from information they've supplied. I then load these into our database. Others are much easier. They supply me with their digital maps and I simply convert and upload them. Not all the maps are public as some landowners don't want this but where they are available I've given the links to the GAGB for the GLAD.

Without maps an agreement that says, "no caching in Ambridge Council woodland" is of little use to us without knowing where it is and which woodlands. With a map it's simple. Here is an example from the GLAD for Wolverhampton. Which parks, which green spaces etc does it cover? We have no idea.

My process for creating a new agreement is as follows. I will usually hear about them either because of a landowner complaint that has come in from Geocaching HQ or the GAGB or from one of my colleagues who's dealing with a CO and their cache. I then contact the landowner, explain what geoaching is all about, how we review caches and that we need maps. They are usually extremely helpful. Once I've added the entry to the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki landowner database I'll email the GAGB the details. Though in the last few months when I realised the GLAD wasn't being updated I've not done this. The Wiki is what we actually use to review, referring to the GLAD if necessary for additional information.

I don't know when new entries are added to the GLAD. What concerns me is how they've been negotiated. I think many are done by CO's when placing their own cache. That's fine but our needs are not addressed. There are no maps. If I happen to notice a new agreement is there I may investigate getting maps. I have worked with some CO's on maps but generally it's something that isn't considered. I would like to see a more 'formal' method of negotiating agreements where the person doing it is supported and helped by someone experienced in doing it. No, I'm not suggesting it should be me but I would like to be 'kept in the loop' regarding maps and would be happy to help and give advice.

Updating agreements. Many agreements in the GLAD are old and have no dates of creation or expiry. The one I linked to above for Wolverhampton has the wording, "However, this decision has been in discussion recently and we are hopeful that permission will be granted soon." So in fact caching could be allowed now. Does anyone monitor these agreements to see if they are still current or have changed? I'm currently working with the Forestry Commission Peninsula district about their GLAD agreement as I discovered at least one of the 'no caching' woodlands is now on the 'allowed' list. That agreement dates to 2010 and it says, "subject to an annual review". I guess that means by the FC but someone should be following that up.

It's a lot of work! I know, I look after our Wiki. It's one of the reasons I don't do any regular reviewing. I try and keep the Wiki updated which includes checking links still work (I've found broken links in the GLAD too), contacts are correct and so on.