G A G B Guidelines

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved+Jun 10 2006, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dodgydaved @ Jun 10 2006, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-t.a.folk@Jun 10 2006, 09:39 PM
"If you do not have this archived I will have to take the matter further."


By our reckoning that is a statement of intent ..not a threat .

Semantics.


A statement of intent could be beneficial or malevolent.

In this case I believe it to have been most surely malevolent.

That is a threat.

A threat directed at a person who has been most positive in his dealings with both cachers and others.

It was unworthy. :angry: [/b][/quote]
Manipulation of facts, that is what is happening, quoting out of context

[moote01]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs+Jun 11 2006, 05:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nobbynobbs @ Jun 11 2006, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs

@Jun 10 2006, 03:43 AM
so you have approached a seperate body and portrayed the caching community in a negative manner?
as the rubbish could only have come from the rest of us not irresponsible cavers or just maybe people who do neither sport?

but then your object is to force the issue and make someone else make the decision to have all cave caches banned without actually saying that is your target.

come out of the closet and actaully tell us if that is your intent. if you feel that strongly stop hiding. i disagree with your carte blanche idea to ban them all. but then we don&#39;t have your experience or knowledge do we?

i think you need to have a sit down and really think if you feel able to carry on caching if you think that we are all so bad for the enviroment or maybe you are hanging around in a beneficial manner to save us from ourselves&#33;

so for the i don&#39;t know how many times... please do the honours of clearly stating what you actually want to acheive with these tactics.

No the cachers were negative about cavers; read the cach logs.

Caves are not playgrounds, they are a natural asset, not to be poluted by human introduced items

If you read you will see my points, they are spelt out clearly. eg cachers have no right to take others agreemments as their own

yes moote i have read your points but at no point have you actually said that your intention is to get all cahes banned from all caves. so is that your aim? a simple yes or no will suffice.....

i am also assuming that you will immediately cease caving? or is it that cavers are more able to guarentee that all cavers will not sully the pristine cave? surely that is as big an assumption as that cachers aren&#39;t able.

lets not worry about who accused who as that is irrelevant. or who took what agreement as again not relevant.

what is relevant is that you have approached a body suggesting that cachers are not to be trusted to venture into the delicate world of the cave because, unlike cavers, we are irresponsible and destructive.

but again that is an assumption because you like to just use illusions and inference not hard stated facts.

wonder if you will have the balls to stand up for what you believe and state that you are against all cave/ all sssi/ all nature reserve/ all english nature/ national trust..... caches please delete as you see fit.

i await being able to know exactly for what you stand. [/b][/quote]
Under the Environment Protection act they actually have no right to be placed

[moote01]

I do believe that within caving circles the practice of Geocaches underground has lead to cavers investigating to remove these. To say they are not amused with their access negotiations being used for the purpose of Geocaching.

The fact that we are doing this is bad, and ultimately will make other Bodies see that Geocachers, just do what the heII they like, and when they like.

So if you want to start to lose access agreements start thinking what you are supporting.

[moote01]

OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Chris n Maria@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.

Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading.

Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side [/b][/quote]
Oh but dear moote I was being so very very serious

[moote01]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Jun 11 2006, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Jun 11 2006, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Chris n Maria

@Jun 10 2006, 08:18 PM

I know many might not like or agree with what I am doing; but that is their issue and not mine.

Hmmmm...

May I sugest some light reading.

Yes&#33; maybe your jokes, are as cutting as my remarks, but my remarks are about a serious issue, shame you have no serious side

Oh but dear moote I was being so very very serious [/b][/quote]


As seen as you don&#39;t actually know me, it is a cheek that you make fun of me in what is a serious issue. Maybe you could actually add something constructive, in stead of tom foolery&#33;

Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 06:21 PM
Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.

This is utter rubbish&#33;

1. If a Geocacher has a serious injury within what is one of the Uk&#39;s most geologically unstable caves, Who has to pull them out risking their lives. Cavers, and they do not get a penny in return.

2. Why should a dry stone wall or SAM be treated different to an SSSI. Every Cacher is up in arms if a cache is in a Dry stone wall. Shame they only have these feelings for the man made world, obviously nature is not important to Geocachers.

3. Stealing others hard won agreements, is bad and if as a committee member you feel this is OK, then I&#39;m afraid this moral ground, what bodies the GAGB negotiate, will do you all harm in future negotiations.

What do I want? It is clear, SSSI status should be given greater consideration by the UK reviewers, as the GAGB guidelines state:

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

If you can&#39;t sing from the GAGB hymn sheet, how can the GAGB be trusted to negotiate, the GAGB is looking foolish here, as you can&#39;t support your own Guidelines, I guess this will look good for future negotiations, as you are singly placing the GAGB into self destruct.

It is high time that the committee took issues like this seriously. It is one thing being a body, but it is another when the body takes an issue by its horns and rides it to conclusion.

This is not about dictation, and the DCA to whom this matter is now on their agenda, are the officially recognised body in the area concerned, yes that is by the UK Government.

It actually looks and is deserved in my eyes that Geocaching has gotten itself a bad name.

I fully support a ban on all caches placed in sensitive SSSI&#39;s this would include most but not all caves

Now ask yourself if you asnswered a single question

You were on the comittee&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 06:21 PM
Moote,

We have all heard your ramblings ad infinitum. You may be right. However you will never accept you are wrong even if you are and know it.

You have been repeatedly asked what it is you want and repeatedly choose to ignore the question.

Be a man and stand up and answer a very simple question in a very simple straightforward way.

In my opinion caver shave no right to dictate who has access to caves only the owners and the appropriate government authorities. In exactly the same way as a climbing club has no right to dictate who can and cannot go on a hill.

Also be man enough to put up the emails you sent so that people can at least judge the replies in context.

The cave is dangerous that&#39;s not an issue. It is clearly designated an 5/5 . You have to make a decision about your confidence in your abilities to do it. If I choose to do it that is my decision not yours.

I have been climbing and caving for many years as have many other cachers. I choose not to do it anymore but am damn sure you are not gonna tell me if i can or not.

As for permission the landowner takes peoples money and lets them wander off. From memory I was never asked if i was experienced underground or not.

Cavers have been responsible for much of the damage underground, look at the cooling towers in Lancaster. Look to your own club and look at the damage that has been caused by them in the past both over and underground. The evidence is there on your own clubs website.

As for Lancaster Hole, that is historical from the 50&#39;s and 60&#39;s these days things are different, look back at how society has changed and don&#39;t try and blame modern cavers for historic errors, most of us cave for scientific reasons, as do I.

Email sent to the DCA

Hello

I am writing to you as you are the Regional Body for caving within the Peak District.

I am a caver, and for my sins also a Geocacher, recently I have noted that a Geocache has been placed quite deep inside Winnats Head Cave.

Now I see this as a problem on several counts and I will list the reasons here:

1. A stream of none cavers, entering what in effect is a Grade V cave is a potential disaster waiting to happen

2. Caves are in no way playgrounds, they are serious environments and should not be trivialised

3. This could put members of the DCRO at unnecessary risk, if unskilled people require assistance

4. It could jeopardise future access negotiations both Local and national

5. People without the correct knowledge of cave could cause irreparable damage

6. I have a strong belief that human introduced items should be kept to a minimum for conservation reasons

7. Any increase in requests to visit to the landowner at Winnats Head Farm could upset access I would be happy if you would contact me about these issues, I can be contacted on: 0777 XXX XXXX or via email.


A link to the Geocache page is here

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...05-ea8bbcb9451d

I do hope that you might be able to help me liaise with the people at Geocaching.com, and get the Geocache in question archived for all the reasons above there contact details are:

contact@groundspeak.com Main site contact address

Lactodorum@gmail.com UK reviewer

Thanks for taking your time with this matter

Dave Grimshaw

I will also clarify that this is my response not the response of the committee.

[paul.blitz]

I will admit that, over the last few weeks, I&#39;ve been rather busy, so simply haven&#39;t been reading the GAGB forums.... and boy have the forums got busy&#33;&#33;

Ok, so some simple thoughts:

- if one believes that caves are "something special", then why do cavers think that they, and they alone, have a right to access the caves?... I&#39;m sure, like cachers, hill-walkers, ramblers, or whatever, that whilst the *majority* of cavers are good, experienced etc etc, there will be a *minority* who are NOT experienced nor as careful, and this small number of cavers could cause (knowingly, or unknowingly) damage. The only safe solution is to stop ANYONE from going into the caves, lest damage is caused.

- in the case of this specific cache: several cachers have visited, and all appear to have taken good precautions (as one would expect with a 5* cache). Now, several of these cachers have removed rubbish (for which the caving community should be grateful, I would have thought). The cavers say they would not have created the rubbish (and I would believe that, in the same way that I would believe that any cacher would not have dropped the rubbish either).... which means that SOMEONE ELSE has been to that cave. Someone who is NOT aware of "protocol"... if anyone is *more likely* to cause damage to caves, get injured, die etc etc, then THEY are the ones. (OK, I accept that even "specialists" can have problems: to be honest, how many "non-cavers" vs "cavers" have accidents in caves? ... of course, I&#39;m screwing with statistic here&#33

- guidelines are what they say... and there will be many examples of when guidelines may legitimately be broken. Let me create some "silly" examples: I&#39;m sure that the countryside code says something like "if you go through a closed gate, close it again after you." If I know the land, the owner etc, and I use that gate to visit them, I may (quite legitimately) decide NOT to close that gate after me. I would be breaking the countryside code&#33; Next silly example: I build a dry stone wall on my land, specifically to hide a cache in. This breaks the GAGB cache-placement guidelines, but is CLEARLY ok. I *did* say they were SILLY examples, but still quite legit&#33;


As others have stated, there is nothing *per-se* that globally prevents a cache being placed on (a) private land; (B) Dodgy Dave&#39;s front garden; &copy; an SSSI... but in ALL cases, to remain legal, the cache must have the "relevant permissions". In the case of (a) there may be more than 1 permission needed (eg leased land may need owner and leasee permission); in the case of &copy; you may need more than just the landowner&#39;s say-so... in BOTH cases it depends on the specifics of the site.


Now, back to caves. Wikipedia defines a cave as: "a natural underground void large enough for an adult human to enter. Some scientists stipulate that it must be large enough that some portion of it will not receive daylight; however, in popular usage, the term includes smaller spaces like cliff cavities, rock shelters and sea caves".

If I go down to the seaside, in some areas I will find, along the cliffs, places that are clearly "caves".... and in many cases, there is absolutely nothing special about these caves. In *principle*, what would be the issue in placing a cache in such a place? There is nothing to damage (if there was, it will have long since been eroded by the sea&#33;&#33;&#33. So even the concept of "lets have a blanket ban on placing caches in caves" would fail to be sensible. As with ALL places, it has to be taken *in context*.


When placing a cache, as with almost ANY activity, a person can believe all permissions have been obtained, but a mistake can be made. In that case, the placement of the cache will have to be reviewed by all involved (I&#39;m thinking more of the "wronged landowner": after all, the person missed in getting permissions may well be very happy to permit the cache).

And if all the "legally relevant people" HAVE given permission, then what right does ANY OTHER PERSON have to decide to remove that cache: in the case of the cited cave cache, *if* the cacher *has* full permissions to place the cache, then *anyone* who removes a cache without permissions is a simple thief.... it doesn&#39;t matter what THEY feel abouth things at all&#33;&#33;&#33; And *if* the cacher *does not* have the correct permissions, then surely it up to the LANDOWNER to "organise removal"?


Wow, that ended up a bit longer than I anticipated&#33;


Paul

Not all the damage is historical. Please read your own clubs website. Some fairly recent examples of opening new entrances.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:02 PM
You were on the comittee&#33;

Was, yes, and I took this and tried to move on it, but people did not like me raising serious issues so they ran and told the teacher&#33; Just like kids do at school, none of you were man enough to email me direct.

Did I answer the questions, I think I did and made it so clear.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:07 PM
Not all the damage is historical. Please read your own clubs website. Some fairly recent examples of opening new entrances.

Yes I have opened caves in the recent past, but we do not damage formations, be careful you might even get the backs of the DCA and BCA up further.

We do actually consider the impact. You have limited caving experience so I would guess your knowledge of this kind of work is minimal.

No issue at all about serious issues being raised in an appropriate and considered manner. This being in a constructive way.

Your email misses out any discussion that had already taken place.

You have no idea what caving experience I have.

[moote01]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Jun 11 2006, 07:06 PM
I will admit that, over the last few weeks, I&#39;ve been rather busy, so simply haven&#39;t been reading the GAGB forums.... and boy have the forums got busy&#33;&#33;

Ok, so some simple thoughts:

- if one believes that caves are "something special", then why do cavers think that they, and they alone, have a right to access the caves?... I&#39;m sure, like cachers, hill-walkers, ramblers, or whatever, that whilst the *majority* of cavers are good, experienced etc etc, there will be a *minority* who are NOT experienced nor as careful, and this small number of cavers could cause (knowingly, or unknowingly) damage. The only safe solution is to stop ANYONE from going into the caves, lest damage is caused.

- in the case of this specific cache: several cachers have visited, and all appear to have taken good precautions (as one would expect with a 5* cache). Now, several of these cachers have removed rubbish (for which the caving community should be grateful, I would have thought). The cavers say they would not have created the rubbish (and I would believe that, in the same way that I would believe that any cacher would not have dropped the rubbish either).... which means that SOMEONE ELSE has been to that cave. Someone who is NOT aware of "protocol"... if anyone is *more likely* to cause damage to caves, get injured, die etc etc, then THEY are the ones. (OK, I accept that even "specialists" can have problems: to be honest, how many "non-cavers" vs "cavers" have accidents in caves? ... of course, I&#39;m screwing with statistic here&#33

- guidelines are what they say... and there will be many examples of when guidelines may legitimately be broken. Let me create some "silly" examples: I&#39;m sure that the countryside code says something like "if you go through a closed gate, close it again after you." If I know the land, the owner etc, and I use that gate to visit them, I may (quite legitimately) decide NOT to close that gate after me. I would be breaking the countryside code&#33; Next silly example: I build a dry stone wall on my land, specifically to hide a cache in. This breaks the GAGB cache-placement guidelines, but is CLEARLY ok. I *did* say they were SILLY examples, but still quite legit&#33;


As others have stated, there is nothing *per-se* that globally prevents a cache being placed on (a) private land; (B) Dodgy Dave&#39;s front garden; © an SSSI... but in ALL cases, to remain legal, the cache must have the "relevant permissions". In the case of (a) there may be more than 1 permission needed (eg leased land may need owner and leasee permission); in the case of © you may need more than just the landowner&#39;s say-so... in BOTH cases it depends on the specifics of the site.


Now, back to caves. Wikipedia defines a cave as: "a natural underground void large enough for an adult human to enter. Some scientists stipulate that it must be large enough that some portion of it will not receive daylight; however, in popular usage, the term includes smaller spaces like cliff cavities, rock shelters and sea caves".

If I go down to the seaside, in some areas I will find, along the cliffs, places that are clearly "caves".... and in many cases, there is absolutely nothing special about these caves. In *principle*, what would be the issue in placing a cache in such a place? There is nothing to damage (if there was, it will have long since been eroded by the sea&#33;&#33;&#33. So even the concept of "lets have a blanket ban on placing caches in caves" would fail to be sensible. As with ALL places, it has to be taken *in context*.


When placing a cache, as with almost ANY activity, a person can believe all permissions have been obtained, but a mistake can be made. In that case, the placement of the cache will have to be reviewed by all involved (I&#39;m thinking more of the "wronged landowner": after all, the person missed in getting permissions may well be very happy to permit the cache).

And if all the "legally relevant people" HAVE given permission, then what right does ANY OTHER PERSON have to decide to remove that cache: in the case of the cited cave cache, *if* the cacher *has* full permissions to place the cache, then *anyone* who removes a cache without permissions is a simple thief.... it doesn&#39;t matter what THEY feel abouth things at all&#33;&#33;&#33; And *if* the cacher *does not* have the correct permissions, then surely it up to the LANDOWNER to "organise removal"?


Wow, that ended up a bit longer than I anticipated&#33;


Paul

Paul

To answer short and sweet here, the UK reviewer hijacked a 3rd party agreement, the way that the UK reviewer mind worked was, "there is and agreement on the caving database, so that covers us" No it does not.

If you think your agreements are easy try arranging caving ones, they can involved many people from many organisations, many these days stipulate that you require insurance for the activity to cover 3rd party injury and issues arising from possible problems.

The cache in question has not had the cave owners agreement Full Stop.

As for a statistical skew, most but not all accidents underground are usually due to inexperience. Yes more cavers have accidents than none cavers, but, the point you make is somewhat green&#33;

If Guidelines are what they say, then cachers should not moan when a cache is in a Dry stone wall, full stop&#33; If you feel your guidelines are worthless like this, then they are, you as a committee member should work and live by them, again the committee places itself in a position which could compromise future access.

Maybe by cave, I should say underground Karst geology. But any senseertive SSSI should be treated with respect.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:16 PM
You have no idea what caving experience I have.

YOu have told me that you had done a little, but not much. I have 30 years and have caved internationally

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:15 PM
No issue at all about serious issues being raised in an appropriate and considered manner. This being in a constructive way.

Your email misses out any discussion that had already taken place.

What discussion? It is just a war in here where I defend myself and others attack&#33;

The reviewers on GC.com perverted my thread there, and many have on here. It is becoming personal against me. Now that is a breach of the forum

No I did not. I actually have quite a bit of experience and have been involved in cave rescues. I made a decision several years ago not to cave anymore as I no longer feel confident underground.

I would not do that cache for that reason.

[moote01]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Jun 11 2006, 07:34 PM
No I did not. I actually have quite a bit of experience and have been involved in cave rescues. I made a decision several years ago not to cave anymore as I no longer feel confident underground.

I would not do that cache for that reason.

Whistling another tune

Please explain.

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.

Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend. [/b][/quote]
Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general.

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk+Jun 11 2006, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kitty Hawk @ Jun 11 2006, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk

@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.

Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.

Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general. [/b][/quote]
Thank you for this considered and constructive response. I just wish I had made it&#33;

[moote01]

Originally posted by Kitty Hawk+Jun 11 2006, 07:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kitty Hawk @ Jun 11 2006, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 04:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kitty Hawk

@Jun 10 2006, 10:46 PM
Whether or not we agree with you has ceased to be the point, possibly it was never the point. The problem is with you, your manner of communication and your apparent superiority complex.

As always there are a variety of means at your disposal for getting things done.

You choose a fairly aggressive, manipulative and condescending fashion of communicating and then feign surprise when people don&#39;t rush to your support.

A N Other could have posted the same message in a benign, informative and open fashion and successfully achieved result you strive for, but with none of the discord.

The other problem you have is that you have openly admitted to people that you enjoy the effect your approach has on people.

Enjoy away.

Here is a fact, I started an innocent post in the Goecaching.com forums, everyone was agreeing, then a Forum moderator decided he would post and made it personal. I got attacked first, I had to defend.

Disagree with you there. You started a topic, but nobody thinks it was innocent.

You were having a private correspondance with the reviewers. You then decided to air your views giving only an abbreviated version of your side of events in order to create a forum situation that you could use as a lever on the reviewers.

What you didn&#39;t anticipate was that the reviewer stood up for himself.

Now, from my vantage point, I see someone who has the above history and another person who has, in the 30 months I&#39;ve been visiting the forums shown himself to be patient and equable at every turn. This is, as far as I know, is a kind of universal feeling and you then alienated yourself and the results are for all to see.

The issue is one that is easy to understand and I believe you understand it too.

The reviewers are tasked to review caches by GC.com, a US based website who have tried to create useful worldwide guidelines to help with cache registration on their website. They have one &#39;master&#39;, GC.com and they review caches based on GC.com guidelines.

Then there is a UK body who has their own set of local guidelines. You know, from being an ex commitee member that GAGB don&#39;t have &#39;authority&#39; to override GC.com on GC.com&#39;s own website.

So from there, approaching a GC.com reviewer was the wrong thing to do - in that it was never going to be effective - You were saying "this doesn&#39;t comply with guidelines" and he was saying "it does comply with GC.com guidelines" - the ones he is there to approve.

The more effective form of action would be to talk about it in the GAGB meetings and sort it out from there, relying on goodwill and common sense which would have most likely worked - you are right to point out there was general agreement on your topic until it transpired that there was more to it than you were letting on.

You will, and probably have, said that there was no permission from the landowner - well, the reviewers are not there to check the permissions, they rely on the cache setter to confirm this and as far as the cache setter is/was aware he did. Job done.

So there is a grey area, grey is dealt with by common sense and goodwill. There is plenty of grey - SSSI&#39;s for instance should be looked after, but not all are so sensitive that you can&#39;t cache on them but some are. It&#39;s grey, seeking to make it black and white will be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It&#39;s just a common sense issue and like the (ex)cache in question common sense would have resolved this.

As a ex caver myself, albeit only at club level, I know that cavers don&#39;t fill caves with litter, that point was used to respond to one of yours and what gets forgotten is that the cachers did remove the rubbish. I also would guess that there are rogue, "common sense reduced" cavers and responsible cavers. As a cacher, I also know that most cachers have green issues and safety issues towards the top of their priorities, I believe you know this also, although, like in all communities, there are a few who are unaware of some issues.

My recommendation would be for you to introduce the DCA and the GAGB, in an even handed way as you can manage and then step back. Hopefully the issue is not too inflamed to be resolved in a way that doesn&#39;t do damage to caves, cachers in caves and geocaching in general. [/b][/quote]
If you wish I will post every email I had with the reviewers and GC.com, you can see how little consideration they gave to the issue.

You will be able to see how one reviewer actually slandered me within the email, and how GC.com refused to take issue with a cacher who used physically threatening language, in an email sent via my GC.com profile.

Politically if you disagree with something you question others for their opinion.

I did this on the GC.com forums; then a Moderator made it personal, and people deleted their comments they has posted.

Oh and lets get this straight here, the cache in question has disgraced Geocachers an no doubt the GAGB within the caving community, brilliant you are wrecking your own sport&#33;

But I asked earlier one simple question which was:

OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

No one has replied to that yet, which actually shows a lot about the people reading this thread. If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like

OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning

Moote

Please consider this

Many people may agree with you about this cache. However in my opinion and the opinion of many people who I have spoken to (including those that support what you are trying to say) feel that the way you have approached this has failed to gain any support in the community.

My issue is not with you or your points. It is how these have been presented by you.

You have had your initial question answered now many times over.

They are guidelines which the reviewers respect and will try to work with. However they are the gagb guidelines and not those of Geocaching.com.

Above all they are guidelines not rules, nor statutes, nor regulations. They are not there to force the reviewers hand.

The GAGB and the caving organisation are now in contact. Please let both organisations resolve this issue. You may or may not get the result you are looking for.

Let them get on with it please

[civilised]

Without wanting to be contentious, why are caches placed in caves anyway ?

Do some people have GPSr&#39;s that work underground ? Can they point me towards where I can find them ?

TIA


civilised

[t.a.folk]

eeee

[nobbynobbs]

well to throw my little 5 p worth into the ring late in the evening.

i have answered your question on your other thread.

and to be honest no you haven&#39;t answered my question.

i believe what you have no said is that you think that caches placed in sssi&#39;s should be given lots of consideration by the approvers....

well we all think that.... but it would appear that you think that if they then agree to the placement they are wrong because they lack your wisdom and experience.

yes people do stupid things without proper planning... climbing. walking over mountains, sailing without experience or equipment. and caving. just how to you propose we could stop them? and all these are rescued by very brave unpaid volunteers.

some of your wording does give an interesting insight. you refer to caching as "your " sport not "our".....

so is it just this one cave that you think should have a blanket ban on caches? or a blanket ban on all caves, or on all SSSI&#39;s?
and don&#39;t hide behind they should be given consideration because they get consideration. it&#39;s just the decision is not the one you seem to want.

[dodgydaved]

Here are, I believe, a total list of activities that are against the SSSI conditions (?) for the Castleton SSSI. Area 8 of which covers The Winnats.

Which of these are seen as being contravened by a geocache?

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/spe...OLD1002643.pdf

Operations likely to damage the special interest
Site name: Castleton
OLD1002643
Ref. No. Type of Operation
1 Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing, and re-seeding.
2 Grazing and changes in the grazing regime (including type of stock, intensity or
seasonal pattern of grazing and cessation of grazing).
3 Changes in stock feeding practice.
4 Changes in the mowing or cutting regime.
5 Application of manure, fertilisers and lime.
6 Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers).
7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.
8 Burning.
9 The release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animal*, plant or seed.
10 The killing or removal of any wild animal*, other than pest control.
11 The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant or plant remains,
including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, moss, lichen and turf.
12 The introduction of woodland management+ and changes in woodland
management+.
13a Drainage (including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains).
13b Modification of the structure of watercourses (eg streams, springs and drains),
including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, re-grading and dredging.
14 The changing of water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation,
storage and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes).
15 Infilling of ditches, drains, ponds, pools or marshes.
20 Extraction of minerals, including peat, topsoil, subsoil, limestone and spoil.
21 Construction, removal or destruction of roads, tracks, hardstands, banks, ditches or
other earthworks, or the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables,
above or below ground.
22 Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves or swallowholes or against cave entrances,
quarry faces or natural outcrops.
23 Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering
works, including drilling.
24 Modification of natural or man-made features, including cave entrances, clearance
of boulders, large stones, loose rock or scree and battering, buttressing, grading or
seeding rock-faces and cuttings, infilling of pits and quarries.
25 Removal of geological specimens, including rock samples, minerals and fossils.
26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest.
28 Changes in game and waterfowl management and hunting practices.
* ‘animal’ includes any mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish or invertebrate.
+ including afforestation, planting, clear and selective felling.



22 maybe a tenuous possibilty, but I think not.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM
Here are, I believe, a total list of activities that are against the SSSI conditions (?) for the Castleton SSSI. Area 8 of which covers The Winnats.

Which of these are seen as being contravened by a geocache?

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/spe...OLD1002643.pdf

Operations likely to damage the special interest
Site name: Castleton
OLD1002643
Ref. No. Type of Operation
1 Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing, and re-seeding.
2 Grazing and changes in the grazing regime (including type of stock, intensity or
seasonal pattern of grazing and cessation of grazing).
3 Changes in stock feeding practice.
4 Changes in the mowing or cutting regime.
5 Application of manure, fertilisers and lime.
6 Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers).
7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.
8 Burning.
9 The release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animal*, plant or seed.
10 The killing or removal of any wild animal*, other than pest control.
11 The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant or plant remains,
including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, moss, lichen and turf.
12 The introduction of woodland management+ and changes in woodland
management+.
13a Drainage (including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains).
13b Modification of the structure of watercourses (eg streams, springs and drains),
including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, re-grading and dredging.
14 The changing of water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation,
storage and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes).
15 Infilling of ditches, drains, ponds, pools or marshes.
20 Extraction of minerals, including peat, topsoil, subsoil, limestone and spoil.
21 Construction, removal or destruction of roads, tracks, hardstands, banks, ditches or
other earthworks, or the laying, maintenance or removal of pipelines and cables,
above or below ground.
22 Storage of materials in pits, mines, caves or swallowholes or against cave entrances,
quarry faces or natural outcrops.
23 Erection of permanent or temporary structures, or the undertaking of engineering
works, including drilling.
24 Modification of natural or man-made features, including cave entrances, clearance
of boulders, large stones, loose rock or scree and battering, buttressing, grading or
seeding rock-faces and cuttings, infilling of pits and quarries.
25 Removal of geological specimens, including rock samples, minerals and fossils.
26 Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest.
28 Changes in game and waterfowl management and hunting practices.
* ‘animal’ includes any mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish or invertebrate.
+ including afforestation, planting, clear and selective felling.



22 maybe a tenuous possibilty, but I think not.

Actually the list is not exclsive,these are just the common set. After speaking with English Nature, other activities might,and do require permission. Caves normally have differant conditions stipulated.

[moote01]

Originally posted by dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM

7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.

Saying the above though, I read point 7 as excluding the placement of Geocaches, thank you I rest my case.

[MCL]

Speaking personally here not as committee member, I still fail to see why this is a GAGB issue really, Moote. You have already told the DCA in your email to them that the problem is with the GC.COM guidelines and the reviewers on that site. So what on earth are you doing telling the GAGB that its all our fault&#33; I just don&#39;t see it.

Sounds like you have a grievance with another website and the way it is run. Bringing that in here and then trying to pin blame on GAGB just doesn&#39;t stand up to logic.

So stop going around trying to pit the GAGB against the caving associations. We didn&#39;t place the cache, we didn&#39;t approve it, and our guidelines would have probably stopped it anyway. So why are we to blame?

The emails you sent to DCA appear to have correctly identified Geocaching.com as the people they should be talking to.

So why aren&#39;t they? And why do they suddenly have GAGB in their sights? I just fail to see why this has anything much to do with us. We don&#39;t control GC.COM and they don&#39;t have to abide by our guidelines.

I am trying to find a reason why you have come in here and stirred up a bitter war on the GAGB territory. I can think of one. But not many more.

[The Royles]

Originally posted by moote01+Jun 11 2006, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 @ Jun 11 2006, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dodgydaved@Jun 11 2006, 09:58 PM

7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.

Saying the above though, I read point 7 as excluding the placement of Geocaches, thank you I rest my case. [/b][/quote]
If you are wanting to split hairs, I would say that the cache was not dumped, spread or discharged in any of the meanings of those words.

Better re-open your case, unless you have another deceased equine in need of assaulting.

[nobbynobbs]

moote, really what must i do to get a reply?

i have answered you could you not do the decent thing and answer me?

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM

"OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers

Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning "


I don&#39;t know how to the the separate quotes bit.

This is a loaded question which is why nobody has answered it. If you were a benign questioner you would recieve answers.

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 06:11 PM
As seen as you don&#39;t actually know me, it is a cheek that you make fun of me in what is a serious issue. Maybe you could actually add something constructive, in stead of tom foolery&#33;

I wasn&#39;t actually making fun of you, I was trying to point out that influencing people is different to berating people.

I have come accross caches which were in places I didn&#39;t feel suitable (in both cases, they had been easily accesable until the landowners had fenced them in or put up signs saying do not enter due to wildlife restrictions.
In both cases I sent a tactful (hopefully&#33 mail to the owners explaining the new situation and in both cases they agreed to move them. If they had not taken my advice I would have left it up to them as according to GC.com they take the risk associated with placing the cache.

I don&#39;t feel I have enough knowledge of the cave/situation to offer an opinon as I always feel that you should let ignorence get in the way of an opinon. My caving knowledge is well out of date too.

"OK, all you pro cave cache Cachers
Answer this either Yes or No

Should Geocachers be able to just use another organisations negotiated access agreement, without any prior consultation with that organisation?

If you answer yes please can you expand on your reasoning "

My answer it depends . For example The ramblers have negotiated access to a field near me:
would I use their agreement to gain access even though I am not a member of the organisation...of course I would.
Would I consult with the ramblers if I wanted to play frisbee there...Nope.
Would I consult them if I was placing a cache there...probebly not - if I had the landowners permission then I wouldn&#39;t care what the ramblers think.
If the landowner told me to talk to the ramblers...then I would.

GAGB & GC.com both produce guidelines which as we all know are effectivly unenforcable but rely on peoples common sense and goodwill to make work. What I find hard to understand though is that you were on the GAGB comittee and had the opportunity to represent cachers in negotiations with 3rd parties, yet you seem to have only started making representations to these other groups after you resigned.

Chris

[Kitty Hawk]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM

If you wish I will post every email I had with the reviewers and GC.com, you can see how little consideration they gave to the issue.

You will be able to see how one reviewer actually slandered me within the email, and how GC.com refused to take issue with a cacher who used physically threatening language, in an email sent via my GC.com profile.

Politically if you disagree with something you question others for their opinion.
.
I did this on the GC.com forums; then a Moderator made it personal, and people deleted their comments they has posted

Oh and lets get this straight here, the cache in question has disgraced Geocachers an no doubt the GAGB within the caving community, brilliant you are wrecking your own sport&#33;

No one has replied to that yet, which actually shows a lot about the people reading this thread. If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like

Politically, yes, you seek other people opinion. First you give the other people the whole story, not just the parts you want to disclose to guide the opinions in your favour.

As you say, this is one of the arts of psychometric questioning of which I assume you have a level of expertise. However, I suspect the reviewer considered your thread the 1st attack and his the defence. If you are able to separate yourself from the situation look at your original post, put it into context and consider how he would feel.

The cache in question may have disgraced the geocaching community - that&#39;s mainly owing to the way in which the situation has been created and then brought to the attention of the caving community. It needn&#39;t have, it could have been easily sorted out.

When I look at the responses here I feel they may show standard signs that you are percieved as a threat (treat? ) Equally though they could show that when people know there is something wrong happening they jump in where ordinarily they wouldn&#39;t. The signals are the same and in this situation, where they are different they favour the latter argument. The aggresssion, in usually non aggressive people, is purely a sign of stress, again a behavioral sign.

You seem to be nearer &#39;Mr Spock&#39; than &#39;Capt Kirk&#39; in the old Star Trek series. I don&#39;t mean that as an insult or characterise, , just that you seem to compute logically, but don&#39;t seem to factor in the emotions and feelings that can be created/caused. It&#39;s easy to figure emotions as the stuff of &#39;weak people&#39; but understanding other peoples emotions is what needs to be addressed at your end of the equation. It&#39;s in your interests - you will be far more successful when you get it.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think MCL&#39;s post sums things up pretty well. This is not a GAGB issue at all. We are not the cache police, and our guidelines are not binding on any parties except where there are specific agreements incorporating them, which is not the case here.

As the cache in question has apparently and perhaps unsurprisingly gone missing, the issue seems to have resolved itself in any case.

---
Bill, not wearing Chairman&#39;s hat

[moote01]

Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Jun 12 2006, 08:54 AM
I think MCL&#39;s post sums things up pretty well. This is not a GAGB issue at all. We are not the cache police, and our guidelines are not binding on any parties except where there are specific agreements incorporating them, which is not the case here.

As the cache in question has apparently and perhaps unsurprisingly gone missing, the issue seems to have resolved itself in any case.

---
Bill, not wearing Chairman&#39;s hat

Yes, not cache police, but you make access agreements, now how would the GAGB feel if your agreements were being abused by none Cachers, and this caused issues with future agreements?

Here is a fact, I help manage and maintain the Ease Gill SSSI both above and below ground, Walkers have free access to the above ground section of the SSSI, but to enter underground you require 2 things.

1. A valid access permit.
2. A valid BCA insurance card or equivalent.

This is now more the norm in caving, not many Cachers could easily get these as you would need to be in a recognised club, and been through a probationary period to gain full membership.

Insurance is a big issue for Landowners and of recent years has been a stumbling point on many caving access agreements. If Geocahers wish to start entering underground then you might actually be breaking an agreement if you enter uninsured.

The GAGB need to consider insurance as any activity can be forced to request this, and as Geocaching is actually an organised activity (By the fact that it has an organised website, and organisations like the GAGB) It will not look good for your future agreements if it is seen by organisations see Geocachers Hijacking there agreements, without due consideration being given to other organisations agreements.

[The Royles]

Bump because I do not like secret societies (unless they are the ones I am a member of)

[paul.blitz]

To answer short and sweet here, the UK reviewer hijacked a 3rd party agreement, the way that the UK reviewer mind worked was, "there is and agreement on the caving database, so that covers us" No it does not.

Innocent question here: would you care to point me to further details on this, they must exist in a thread somewhere?

You use the word "hijack an aggreement"... if there is some form of "open agreement", which someone might have agreed, then I don&#39;t see that as "hijacking". However, if the agrement WAS specific (eg permission to a specific organisation) then someone made a major error of judgement.

However, I&#39;m also aware that, in a discussion, things tend to get massively misquoted and exaggerated, so I&#39;d just like to be able to back-track a bit to undersatnd the REALITY of what happened.

The cache in question has not had the cave owners agreement Full Stop.

Next innocent question: did you make this simple point (and provide the cave owner details) to the reviewer when suggesting that the listing (and cache) be removed?

If Guidelines are what they say, then cachers should not moan when a cache is in a Dry stone wall, full stop&#33;

In essence, you are correct. But it is "generally felt" that they shouldn&#39;t be (placed in dry stone walls) as there is a distinct possibility of criminal damage, so when it happens, people pass "suitable comment" (however, to be honest, your behaviour, from what I have seen here, far exceeds that).

If you feel your guidelines are worthless like this, then they are.

If i have a 5 year old child, I may have a "guideline" in that I want that child to hold my hand whenever we cross a road. It is a very sensible idea, but if it happens to be Christmas day (or the time England are in the world cup final) and the road is absolutely deserted, then it may be ok *in that instance* to NOT hold the child&#39;s hand. But that ability to sometimes ignore the guideline in NO WAY diminishes the underlying worth of that guideline.

But any sensirtive SSSI should be treated with respect.

I agree, but there is major difference between "respect" and a complete ban. If you decide to enter an SSSI to simply have a walk around, then you should do so "with respect"... but you are not BANNED from walking around. Nor are dogs / bikes etc NECCESSARILY banned from SSSIs: it depends on the site.

I have heard of caches being placed in suitable SSSI *sites*... usually away from the "main parts", and in full cooperation with the land owners, and all other interested parties (and to those who HAVE managed that, I take off my hat to you... I know that it will have taken a LOT of work to do so)



By the way, Milton, maybe you would care to learn a little "nettiquette", and learn to "edit down" the messages you quote, as I have. In many cases you copy a major essay, and add just a few lines. OK, I *know* bandwidth is close to free, but storage space and my time are both more limited&#33;&#33;


Paul Blitz

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 12 2006, 09:53 AM
The GAGB need to consider insurance as any activity can be forced to request this, and as Geocaching is actually an organised activity (By the fact that it has an organised website, and organisations like the GAGB)

The whole question of insurance has come up before, but there are 2 major issues with the GAGB taking out any insurance:

a) it would be HUGELY expensive, as it would potentially need to cover ANYONE seeking ANY cache, at ANY time, with ANY level of (in)experience. (But you are very welcome to offer to sponsor it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33

B) You are not allowed to insure for something for which you are not legally responsible. The GAGB (as an organisation) does not place any caches. It does not SEEK any caches. It does not LIST any acches. It does not "APPROVE" any caches. So there is no legal connection between the GAGB as an organisation, and caches placed.

(Nor are GC.com caches limited to being placed by, or sought by, GAGB members)

Therefore, GAGB is unable to get any insurance to make sure that "anyone seeking a cache is insured".

I wonder, does the Ramblers Association have liability insurance to cover its members when out rambling? I HIGHLY doubt it, for the same reason.


One major agreement that GAGB now holds DID initially ask for insurance cover, and for that single reason, we were unable to go any further until the organisation withdrew its demand for insurance.

Paul

[Firth of Forth]

Originally posted by moote01@Jun 11 2006, 08:16 PM
If you read books on Cognitive development and Psychometric reasoning, you might just understand a little about how you are all responding. To put it blunt you are all acting agressive as you feel threatened, you perceve me as a treat. Why? that is your issue you need to addressthis and you will then read things like

As a clinical psychologist this makes no sense to me, Moote. I&#39;ve never heard the phrase &#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; before; but then I don&#39;t know everything about psychology.

It&#39;s a &#39;I&#39;m superior to you&#39; kind of statement, and is just the kind of thing that illustrates a previous point about how your style is not likely to win friends and influence people. It&#39;s a real shame that you can&#39;t see that.

[t.a.folk]

As a clinical psychologist this makes no sense to me, Moote. I&#39;ve never heard the phrase &#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; before; but then I don&#39;t know everything about psychology.

&#39;psychometric reasoning&#39; is a management tool "drawn up" by psychologist, used to profile potential recruits

Quote from Goggle

"Practise Psychometric Reasoning Tests
Have you got an assessment day or interview coming up, and been told there&#39;ll be a numerical reasoning or data interpretation test?

These types of test are increasingly popular among graduate recruiters, as they provide a way to assess candidates&#39; analytical abilities on a level playing field.

If you haven&#39;t taken them before, the tests can be daunting, as they are a new and unfamiliar type of task.

The key to resolving this is to get some practise tests under your belt and familiarise yourself with them - and luckily we have a number of resources below to help you to do that. These are examples of test formats which are used widely by leading recruiters.

The tests have time limits, to recreate the real thing, so make sure your mobile&#39;s off (no phoning a friend) and give them a go&#33;

Good luck&#33;

Numerical Reasoning Practice Test

Logical Reasoning Practice Test

Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

And you&#39;ll find others in our Psychometric Tests guide"

Ah but thats talking about tests not reasoning&#33;

[t.a.folk]

Numerical Reasoning Practice Test

Logical Reasoning Practice Test

Verbal Reasoning Practice Test

????????

[el10t]

Never mind - edited out. Not worth the effort.