Conflicts of Interest

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Jul 31 2003, 09:20 PM
I agree with you entirely that we have to deal with the landowners and show them the positive side of geocaching. You've made an excellent start with the HCC but the guidelines were drawn up by Hampshire, for Hampshire, not for the whole of the UK. It may be that these guidelines WILL be acceptable to all the big land owners that's why we need you (GAGB)... to talk to them and find out. Until then, we're still playing to GC.com rules.

As I said above, guidelines almost identical to those adopted by HCC were within our grasp with the countries latgest land manager, Forest Enterprise, who also control The Forrestry Commission. That is how we were able to be so prepared for HCC.

How can we possibly say to a land manager, "Please Sir, if you let us play on your land, we might follow these guidelines." ?

We have to say to them "This is the way we do it" !


I don't really believe that you want cache approvals in the UK to adhere to the GC.com guidelines. Your cache will be archived if you even mention a pub on your cache page, etc. etc. Those were bad days indeed !

Each area in the USA has different guidelines. Here are some more guidelines from some of the various associations across the USA. Don't take my word for it, check them out.

Georgia Geocachers Association

The Maryland Geocaching Society

Michigan Geocaching Organisation

Wisconsin Geocaching Association

Great Plains Geocaching

Central OregonGeocaching

And a couple from the government :

Geocaching prohibited in the Minnesota State Parks

Pensylvania Department of Conservation

Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department


If we don't take a proactive stance soon the UK is likely to suffer the same way.

[Mr & Mrs Hedgehog]

I (Mr H.) have been following this thread with interest. Can I just add something. I think we need the GAGB. We need something local. I used to be a member of an American organisation. We wanted to expand outside the USA. We recognised that authorities in the UK would deal better with someone local, than with an US organisation. So I was appointed as UK Liasion Officer for this group. I did wor hard for it but with little success. One of the reasons I didn't get far was that even though I was UK based, I was still representing a US organisation. To really progress in this country we need a UK organisation. That is what I see the role of the GAGB. I would like to see the GAGB have more recoginition form the top body. Unfortunatly we have a confuction with the different GC.com, Navicom and all the other geocaching bodies around. Should GAGB be affiliated with only one of them or try to cover them all is not for me to debate.

Whilst I agree that HCC 'guidelines' are for HCC and not the UK. I work for a different council so know that things set by one council are meaningless 'over the border' in another authority. However they do form a great platform for us to build on. If we can show that the HCC guidelines work, and we can stick to them and that HCC are happy with they way we conduct ourselves, then this will help talk with other land owners so very much. It will show us as being a responsible group. Who want to enjoy our hobby but respect the land that we are using for or hobby.

[The Hornet]

Whoa!!! The title of this thread is "Conflicts of Interest". It was set up to discuss the position of GC.COM moderators, GCUK webmeisters and other sundry people in relation to the impending elections to the GAGB committee.

What we are getting is the same discussion about how GAGB should implement local rules/guidelines, calll them what you will. Now this discussion has been aired before and, yes, I have held some forthright views myself. But I believe now is not the best time to have this discussion. As I said an election is looming. Various people have been nominated to the committee to run GAGB for the next year or so. These people will thrash out a policy which, I hope, will be discussed by the membership. I don't know who this committee will be nor do I know what views will be held. I certainly don't know the outcome of their deliberations.

Can I suggest that we all take a step back and for the next couple of weeks keep the discussion on the topic in hand - i.e. electing a committee?

I would venture a guess that little is being done "behind the scenes" at the moment. How can it be when there is no committee?

Fainling agreement to delay discussion, could I respectfully suggest a "Guidelines" thread be set up to continue the discussion and leave this thread to the purpose it was set up.

I'm off to bed now, goodnight!

[John Stead]

Pardon me when The Hornet has tried to bring us back on topic - but in this discussion frequent reference is made to HCC rules as though they applied to all caches in Hampshire. Surely they are only applicable to land in the ownership of the County Council, i.e. their country parks, and therefore they are fully in their right to call them rules. If we accept them as guidelines elsewhere that is another matter.

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:13 PM
How can we possibly say to a land manager, "Please Sir, if you let us play on your land, we might follow these guidelines." ?

We have to say to them "This is the way we do it" !

Problem is, who is we? GC.com. GAGB members? ...

And how many of us ... 95%? 99%? 100%?

I really do believe that is a web forum had been involved that the Cuban Missile crisis would have ended in mushrooms, the Berlin wall would still be up and we'd still be powdering our kids with DDT.

You will never get 100% support behind anything (especially on the web ...) - No one association can expect 100% support and loyalty to the rules and guidelines from non-members. It would be pushing it to expect that from the members :P

I do believe in what the GAGB is fighting for but I but I'm not sure if it can work through GC.com (perhaps alongside it) and fear that the only true way you can get a handle on the "we" is by approving and listing caches on GAGB. Currently the "we" is too disparate and the links between GC.com. approvers, moderators and GAGB too complex for folks to understand - resulting in all the problems we are seeing. I'm afraid that GC.com UK approvers following rules that the GAGB came up with for the HCC just seems too sinister for most. GAGB membership should mean a signing up to sensible rules - otherwise find another listing site.

The final problem I see is the fuzzy links between GC.com and GAGB. Long established members of the GC community have jumped on GAGB, encountered the inevitable sniper fire that this draws then publically decided that they want nothing more to do with GC (in one way or another)..I think this is almost (if not more) damaging to geocaching than one person out of 20, 50 or whatever saying "stuff your rules". Sorry this sounds confrontational and I mean it in a constructive way but I do feel that GAGBrelated issues have damaged UK geocaching over at GC.com greatly.

Elm'r

[Team Paradise]

This whole situation seems to me to be one of communication...

Let me try to explain my thinking...

1. There seems to be fairly unanimous approval from everyone for the guidelines as drawn up by HCC / GAGB as being sensible... I haven't yet seen anyone say they're bad in any way.

2. Now, T&J pointed out above that in order to convince other landowners to adopt a similar stance to that of HCC regarding permission, we need to able to say "This is how we do things" rathar that saying "we might do it like this" ... Sound sensible to me.

3. As T&J also point out above, the UK already has it's own special provisions for GC.COM approval of caches.... In other words, there GC.COM approval guidelines are not universal already.

OK, here's the problem as I see it...

Nobody except the approvers appear to know what these special provisions are.

Given 1. and 2. above, it would seem sensible to adopt this for the UK in general but there is no mechanism on GC.COM to inform cachers of the current "special geographic" guidelines or of any changes to these guidelines.

If 1. above is given as true, then as long as Moss got approval/agreement from GC.COM that this was to become part of the UK specific cache approval guidelines, he's done nothing wrong except not having a method to communicate this, which isn't his fault.

Equally if 1. above is true and everyone really is happy with these guidelines, is there really a problem in adopting these for the UK in general, especially if GC.COM has agreed them as part of it's UK specific provisions for cache approval ?

These GC.COM "UK specific" guidelines (such as allowing pub names, etc) must have come from somewhere and be ammendable somehow, but it would appear this the procedure isn't available to everyone, which seems to be part of the problem and where the conflict of interest seems to stem from...

Note that in both of the above paragraphs, I have no idea whether or not GC.COM has sanctioned these guidelines... this is purely hyperthetical.

Did that make any sense at all, or have I just been babbling... ?

Steve

[MCL]

The topic is Conflict of Interest, and I will come to that, but first I need to digress in order to do so.

A while back there was a big row about the Food Standards Agency. It was set up to be a part of the ministry of ag, fish and food, and people made the very valid point that the same people should not be on both sides of the fence (farmers vs consumers). This was a percieved confict of interest, even though the people concerned may have been very honourable and decent chaps.

I believe we have a similar (though not identical) situation here. When a person signs up to use a cache site like GC.COM they have to accept that there are two places that rules and guidelines might be imposed on them. One is obviously the landowner of the particular land being cached on, and the other is GC.COM. Every person signing up to GC.COM is accepting the authority of these two entities. If its navicache they sign up to, then the two entities are the landowners and Navicache. And so on.

So a cacher placing a cache on HCC land has no choice but to follow the guidelines agreed by HCC. They also have to follow the guidelines laid down by GC.COm (or navicache or whoever) because that is the site they signed up with.

So far I have no problem with any of this. However, the next step is teh dangerous one: To then have a cache that follows GC guidelines but may fall foul of one of the HCC ones, rejected for approval by a GC approver, when the cache is not on HCC land, and the landowner whos land it *is* on has made no such guideline restrictions, is plain wrong.

Now, I don't actually know whether this scenario has arisen yet, but whether it has or has not is immaterial. The fact is it *could* and this would mean that HCC guidelines are being imposed on a person who has no knowledge of them. And that is not fair, and not right. A person who just signs up to GC and takes no part in GAGB or any web forums, will wonder what the hell is going on when they get their cache rejected due to rules they can't see on the GC.COM site. This, I believe, is one of the points being made by Icenians.

The only two sources of guideline authority a cacher submits to is GC and the particular landowner. And GAGB are not part of that sequence. Where GAGB comes in is to provide judiciuos and gentle armtwisting of major landowners to keep them from banning us from their land. It is useful to have HCC guidelines in hand to show these other landowners, but until they accept them on their land, through GAGB negotiations or otherwise, then there is no reason to have then imposed on them by a GC cache approver without warning.
This, I think, is related to one of the points being made by Pharisee.

And this is where the confilct of interest comes in. I think it is encumbant upon GAGB to negotiate guidelines with landowners, who have the power to enforce them, but if GAGB want GC.COM to adopt guidelines for the UK, they should do that by negotiation as a body with GC.COM and indeed there may be an argument for them doing just that. The GC might well say to it's approvers, "we have agreed that the UK caches be approved to such-and-such standards, and will be saying so on our site to all our members. You may now enforce these guidelines when approving caches" That would be an eminently sensible way to go about things. The lowly cacher would see that GC HQ had sanctioned things and they either submit to their authority or go caching on another site. (Icenians did something similar to this, and I have no problem with that)

Unfortunately, what I think we have at the moment is (and I may be wrong) is two of the planet's cache approvers on GC have decided to approve using guidelines not available to a GC.com cacher, and without telling them. Now it may well be that so far, no harm has been done, no cache has been rejected due to an HCC clause which is not a GC clause and where teh cache is not on HCC land. But just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. In fact, it almost certainly *will* eventually which is why the situation must be resolved. There are two ways to do this.

- GC.COM publishes the fact to all its members that it is adopting the HCC guidelines for the UK cache approvers to enforce. The HCC guidelines then become, in effect, GC guidelines. Thats OK in that case.

- The GC cache approvers stick to GC guidelines available for GC members to see.

Either one or the other. Now I know the argument has been put that the UK approvers have already got a hidden list of variations they are allowed to run with, after winning the approval of their masters in the US. ...>>

>>> Continued in next post (There are system limits on size of posts)

[MCL]

<<< From previous post

... What is the difference? The difference is that most of the UK variations have been relaxations of existing GC guidelines (pubs, for example) whereas most of the reasons for rejecting a cache due to HCC guidelines will be to do with a restriction over the top of the GC guidelines. People don&#39;t mind relaxations, they do mind restrictions, and this I think is one of the issues at stake here.

So now back to the topic...Conflict of interest. After saying the above, I can now put it in one sentence: If the GAGB are going to be negotiating/lobbying/begging/suggesting guidelines with GC.COM in the future (and I think they probably will be at some point) then there is no way that the GAGB can have GC.com personnel (for want of a better word) on it&#39;s committee. It is the Food Standards scenario all over again. We can&#39;t, for the same reasons, have the major landowners on teh committee either. People would never believe that everyone was wearing the right hats, even if they in fact were. We have to be seen to be clean, as well as actually *being* clean.

Now this is not to say that the cache approvers from GC.Com can&#39;t be members of GAGB, of course they can, but they shouldn&#39;t be on the governing body. Conversley, comittee members of GAGB should on no account take up positions at GC.Com, for exactly teh same reasons. The general membership can overlap, but I don&#39;t believe the "officials" should. It just looks dodgy. Don&#39;t go near it with a barge pole. People will never believe you can maintain integrity.

One consequence of having GC officials on GAGB committee, might be a cry from "officials" (again, for want of a better word) of, say, Navicache, that while GC has representation at the top, Navicache (or whoever) doesn&#39;t. They might well claim this to be an unfair situation. And they might be right. It is a road which I think we should stop ourselves going down right here, right now. As I said in another post, we don&#39;t know who might be appointed to such posts in the future. We should be making fireproof basic policy to protect us from people we may never even have met yet.


Anyone got any unburned pizza....?

[Icenians]

Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts?

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 1 2003, 08:06 AM
Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts?

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev

I think it might be something to do with the fact that MCL uses 100 words when 10 will do

Only joking, mate....

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jul 31 2003, 11:41 PM
but I do feel that GAGBrelated issues have damaged UK geocaching over at GC.com greatly.

Elm&#39;r

This is not the case.

Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

If I might quote Jeremy for the second time

We&#39;ll try to address regional requirements, laws, regulations, etc. in the new release of the site. It may not be one of the first items to add to the site.

No damage has been done to UK caching at GC.com

By the way, in my post above where I listed some of the regional sites with their own guidelines I omitted to mention, those are the guidelines applied by approvers when approving caches in those areas. Regional guidelines are expected and accepted by GC.com. This is how the approvers help each other out when someone is on holiday etc. Many of the new cachers maybe don&#39;t realise that June and I were GC.com approvers, that is how we know all this.

Many cachers have said they want to see the UK specific guidelines listed somewhere. As I said, this is in the GC.com rewrite when it is finished.

Team Paradise seem to have a firm grasp on the logic behind all this. Thanks for putting it so eloquently.

[Geoff &amp; Bonnie]

What MCL said makes eminent sense. (I think&#33
Geoff

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Do you not feel that your good selves stepping away from approving/moderating, then Richard and Beth, now Moss Trooper has had any negative effect on UK geocaching. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I support the GAGB guidelines as they stand but I think any land owner/newcommers to the game taking a look at the GC.com UK forum cannot help but see conflict, arguments and disputes. Many of these have little to do with GC.com but revolve around GAGB. I cannot see how this has had no negative effect whatsoever.

[Gavotteers]

As a newbie could someone please explain all the animossity between GCGB and GC.com

as i see it GCGB is set up to represent the interest of GB Cachers and GC.com the entire world

If forming GCGB has caused so many problems can i ask the question does GCGB have to be part of GC.Com

Why couldn&#39;t GCGB be a completely seperate group which would be Just involved in Great britain ???
or is that too simple

This forum is great beats watching the idiot&#39;s lantern anytime keep it up




:

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 1 2003, 09:45 AM
Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

OK, that&#39;s great if GC.com were the only listing site on the web. And I&#39;m sure Jeremy does feel that way but even he himself admits that even wording changes to the site are not a high priority.

The only geocachers that will see the need to follow these guidelines are those who are members to something they believe in. Bringing out guidelines and expecting all to follow them if folly. Not everyone follows the Highway code - designed to save lives.

The only geocachers that GAGB can issue guidelines for and represent when talking to land owners are their own members ... not GC.com users. The size of the GAGB membership should be the driving force with land owners, pointing out how these members abide bu the rules and yes, there will always be a few deviant outlaws (not ideal wording but I think it suffices). Then GAGB members agree to remove matches/food stuffs from caches or whatever.

If land owners are being told "all geocachers" as opposed to "our members" it will not work. This is where the link between GC.com and GAGB becomes fuzzy.

Also, what happens when/if we don&#39;t have a GAGB member as approver (or someone who decides they don&#39;t like a rule) ... again, the guidelines mean little. Same with a non-local approver (we&#39;re back to that right now until Eckington is back from holiday after Moss T&#39;s departure).

I&#39;m sorry but I do think that in the last few months UK geocaching has turned into a bit of a shambles as viewed from a GC.com perspective.

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 1 2003, 09:45 AM
This is not the case.

Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

We all know that hindsight is 20/20 and if, as someone&#39;s tag line says &#39;if only like had an undo button&#39;, we wouldn&#39;t have all these problems.

The British mentality, mind set, call it what you will, will always resist any attempt to impose restictions on our liberty / freedom of choice / etc no matter how well meaning the imposers intentions or how sensible the restrictions.
I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen a single posting where the cacher states that the HCC guidelines are anything but good, common, caching sense so why have we had all this argument?
I&#39;ll tell you... It&#39;s because the guidelines were apparently being imposed on us without consultation. If Moss had started a forum topic along the lines of:
&#39;We, the UK Approvers, would like to use the HCC guidelines nationwide. Would UK geocachers find that acceptable?&#39; then I&#39;m sure, after a day or two&#39;s discussion, he would have had a majority approval and all would be sweetness and light.

Like I said... hindsight is 20/20.... A bummer but it&#39;s never too late to learn

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Having re-read this thread : I think that the main objection that most have to guidelines is clear ... The current HCC guidelines (hereby referred to as the guidelines) were drawn up by what is to most a "Geocaching Magic Circle". Now great. These guidelines were - to my mind - sensible. Now, it appears that they apply to HCC land. Great. But this spawns three issues ...

1 - what if *someone* negociates with a CC and has dumb rules - or just different. Matches may be allowed, holes may be dug, virtuals only ... what stops there becomming guidelines too.

2 - The moderators now approve to these HCC guidelines many wonder why.

3 - There are guildelines now being used that appear nowhere (glass containers). Whether we agree or not with this, this can be a problem in the future.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 1 2003, 11:09 AM

I&#39;ll tell you... It&#39;s because the guidelines were apparently being imposed on us without consultation.

Bingo. And the GAGB also needs to be able to sustain criticism as well as praise without members quitting geocaching at the drop of a hat.

[Chris n Maria]

Did I mention its just a game?

Trying desperately to remain neutral in this as things seem to be getting heated over not very much.

People seem to be saying that the issue is not :
Whether the GAGB should exist/negotiate with landowners/talk to GC.Com.
Whether the guidelines are acceptable (everyone seems to think they are OK).
Whether the present GAGB committee have done a good job.

The Issue does appear to be:
Should the guidelines have been imposed without discussion by the community?

Reality Check remember Jeremy@groundspeak can add whatever rules he likes - the site is not a democracy. You can get upset about the imposition of rules but really you don&#39;t have much say in them. Luckily he has allowed local rules – Good thing.

GAGB was setup by the mods (at the time) to add some sort of democracy to the development of local rules and legitimacy to the negotiations with landowners.

I think the issue comes down to should Moss have imposed guidelines across the whole of the UK without informing us or asking for opinions first? All I can think is that as there is little material change Moss (Eckington, T&J et al) didn’t see a problem with that. Others have got upset about the principle of rule imposition without discussion (but should note the reality check above).

At the end of the day all this is pointing to the need for a formal separation between the cache approvers and those who formulate guidelines with GAGB. Mainly to protect the approvers from flame wars like this. This goes against my nominations somewhat but I nominated Moss because he has done loads for caching and I thought he would be good in the role. I can see now that wearing both hats puts people in a very difficult position even when they are trying to act in the best interests of the sport.

If we had ever been able to debate the imposition of guidelines there is one thing I would have liked to have asked:
The guidelines say I cannot place a cache inside a dry stonewall – does this apply if am a farmer and it is my wall, on my land?

At the end of the day the argument is about how things were done – not what was done.

Chris.

P.S.. Notice I haven’t talked about Navicache at anytime during the above….that is a different topic.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 1 2003, 12:04 PM
Reality Check remember Jeremy@groundspeak can add whatever rules he likes - the site is not a democracy.

Yes, Jeremy does have rules. They are on his site.

I&#39;m happy with Jeremy (et al) = GC.com

But how does this work out as

GC.com = GAGB?

GAGB = Navicache??? :

GAGB can only ever realistically expect to represent GAGB members. I think that it is the tie in between the GAGB and GC.com that makes folks uncomfortable. If one day Jeremy wants to make a rule that enforces the HCC guidelines, fine, but until he does, there shold be respect given to the rules of the sport as the site sees it, otherwisae it is normal that we will see accusations of unclear rules and moderators playing to two masters.

[Teasel]

Nobody has suggested that the HCC guidelines are not a good model which should be presented to other landowners for discussion. Nobody has suggested that GC.com should not approve Hampshire caches according to the HCC rules. The only issue is HCC rules being applied in, for example, Lanarkshire.

I appreciate T&J&#39;s point that people who are negotiating with landowners need to be able to show that cachers are responsible people who have, and who obey rules. But what&#39;s so bad with saying to a landowner:

"The basic rules currently being applied to caches on your land cover most things, but we recognise that you may have extra guidelines of your own. For example, whilst sensibly banning food and drink per se, the GC.com rules do allow bottled water to be left in caches. When we developed the guidelines currently being applied in Hampshire, the HCC requested that no drink of any kind should be left in caches".

If this is a bad approach, somebody tell me quickly, as that&#39;s the one I&#39;m intending to use myself&#33; :unsure:

[Teasel]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 1 2003, 11:09 AM
I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve seen a single posting where the cacher states that the HCC guidelines are anything but good

Well, a few of us have questionned the discouragement of night caching, but that&#39;s about as serious as the criticism has been.

Personally, I&#39;d like to see night caching encouraged&#33; As someone who is called upon to search through the night for missing walkers and (usually but sadly not always) find them before they die of hypothermia, I feel that anything which gives people experience of night navigation in a relatively safe and controlled environment is a Good Thing.

I do appreciate the HCC&#39;s concern that encouraging night caching might actually add to the statistics&#33; However, in my experience, such incidents are often caused by people "biting off more than they can chew". Night caching seems, to me at least, a good introduction to the extra demands, and responsibilities, of walking through the countryside after dark.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Teasel@Aug 1 2003, 12:40 PM
"The basic rules currently being applied to caches on your land cover most things, but we recognise that you may have extra guidelines of your own. For example, whilst sensibly banning food and drink per se, the GC.com rules do allow bottled water to be left in caches. When we developed the guidelines currently being applied in Hampshire, the HCC requested that no drink of any kind should be left in caches".

Add to that the fact that the enviromental impact from geocaching is tiny when compared to what already goes on on land open to the public already ... litter, fly-tipping, dog mess, disposable BBQs placed on the ground and picnic tables. Instead of emphasising GC rules, concentrate on the positive sides too, such as CITO, appreciation of the outdoors and so on.

Case in point ... I know the coords to several fly tips and burnt out cars on council or forestry enterprise land. I&#39;ve provoded them with these and some - several years on - are still there. The impact geocachers have on land open to the public is minimal at worst, positive at best. This, I think, are the areas we should promote. Certain areas might want to have additional rules put in place and that&#39;s great.

Additionally, will the HCC guidelines be applied retrospectivly to all caches on all HCC property?

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 1 2003, 12:32 PM
If one day Jeremy wants to make a rule that enforces the HCC guidelines, fine, but until he does, there shold be respect given to the rules of the sport as the site sees it, otherwisae it is normal that we will see accusations of unclear rules and moderators playing to two masters.

I&#39;m obviously being really dim here. How can GAGB negotiate any agrements without a way to inforce them for that specific area?
Without an understanding that GAGB negotiations will have some enforcment by GC.Com the negotiators are simply "walking naked in to the conference chamber".

[Moss Trooper]

Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can&#39;t stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can&#39;t plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM&#39;s. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I&#39;m well out of it

[Teasel]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
You can&#39;t stash a cache in HCC on a SAM

Sorry this is off-topic (please reply off-line if you wish), but does anyone have a complete list of SAMs in the UK? Counties and districts often provide lists on their websites, but often not in a particularly useful format. I&#39;m currently trying to contact someone in English Heritage for a complete list of all monuments with statutory protection but if someone already has access to such a list, that&#39;d save some time. Also, bear in mind that EH are currently having a bit of a blitz and hope to add several thousand more SAMs over the next few years, so we&#39;ll need to be sure we keep ourselves up to date.

Sorry for the intermission, I now return you to the COI debate... h34r: :unsure:

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can&#39;t stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can&#39;t plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM&#39;s. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I&#39;m well out of it

As long as it&#39;s not in a glass container

Seriously though, that&#39;s the kind of clear statement that we&#39;ve needed here for a while now.

Sorry to see you go Moss Trooper. I had great respect for your wisdom and desicions. I&#39;m sorry to see you go

[washboy]

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 1 2003, 08:06 AM
Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts?

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev

I don&#39;t know, Icenians. So far you&#39;ve not said anything to wind me up. I agree with the points you raised, both now and several weeks ago (I just wish you&#39;d not removed your caches to Navicache )

MCL has, as usual, detailed in a most eloquent manner, the very points I would have made (had I the time and skill to do so).

There is a need for total transparency in all commitee-type dealings (hence my comment, in another thread, about using the Admin user account by several people and for a variety of purposes).

GAGB should be independent of both landowners and geocache listing sites. Just as I would wish them to negotiate with landowners, I would wish them to be able to negotiate with GC.com, et al - but not from the inside.

[Mr &amp; Mrs Hedgehog]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can&#39;t stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can&#39;t plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM&#39;s. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I&#39;m well out of it

Surely the two sets of guidelines are not mutually exclusive. If you place a cache on land belonging to HCC then surely you have to obey the HCC guidelines and the GC.com rules (or which ever listing site you use). If you plant a cache on non-HCC lands then just the GC.com rules apply (at the moment)

Mr H.

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Jul 31 2003, 11:41 PM
Problem is, who is we? GC.com. GAGB members? ...

I seem to be on the GAGB forum, which I guess means I&#39;m amongst GAGB members. I have to be a GAGB member to post here.

So where is the problem in understanding "we"?

[paul.blitz]

So, I&#39;m busy for a few days, and can&#39;t log in, and look what happens&#33;&#33;&#33;


Now, first of all, about those guidelines (note GUIDELINES, not RULES): I just went & looked at the GAGB guidelines page. I don&#39;t seem to be able to find any GAGB guidelines. I did find a copy of the HCC guidelines, and I found a comment that said:

The guidelines are so close to those already applied by Geocaching, we have lost very little, if anything.

We would like all other land owners to adopt these guidelines and would suggest one addition :- "No cache will be placed in or on a dry stone wall" (there are no dry stone walls in Hampshire)..

I am sure I read a comment that the (future) GAGB guidelines were something for the new committee to sort out.


Next, about the application of guidelines: I don&#39;t see any problem when GAGB sets up its own guidelines. It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site. So:

1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

2) caches logged on Navicache etc must meet any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines. If there are no site-specific guidelines, then just Navicache guidelines apply (erm, ARE there any? I honestly do not know&#33

3) having said that, if you are a GAGB member, you will have promised to place caches to meet the (future) GAGB guidelines anyway.

And if you break the rules? Well, GC.COM can revoke your membership, as you broke their rules. So can GAGB. So can Navicache. And finally, the "offended landowner" is free to take "suitable action".


Now, someone questioned why HCC added in to the guidelines "For reasons of safety and security Hampshire County Council discourage geocaching on their land during the hours of darkness". I don&#39;t see the problem with that: they are simply covering themselves on the legal front.

Let me give a real example, but extended with a "what if?":

I was up near Peterborough on business, so went out, in the pitch black, in winter, to do a cache. I ended up walking down a muddy farm lane, across the farmyard (it was ok - it&#39;s a right of way) and into a field, where there was once a castle (but not a stone to be seen now&#33 and a cache.

As I entered the field, I had a good look around with my torch: it was good that I did, as about 10 to 20 ft to my right, the ground dissappeared down a steep slope, maybe 30 ft down to a stream. If I hadn&#39;t been paying attention, I could easily have slipped (I did say "field" and "winter", so that = muddy and slippery&#33, and broken a leg. At that point, I might find that I have undesired expenses (if I were self-employed, I would have no income) so might be interested in taking legal action.

Now, if I were on HCC land, I might feel that HCC were responsible, as they should have posted warnings, in case anyone went sight-seeing there in the dark. But, because HCC have issued a guideline, I would find it very much more difficult to win any legal action against them.

(Aa sideline, anyone placing a cache on HCC land - or any land with specific guidelines - might feel it worthwhile drawing attention to those guidelines in the cache notes, as they apply not just to cache placers, but to cache seekers too)


So far, I don&#39;t see any issues, so why has there been so much gnashing of teeth about issues?


Paul

[Icenians]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 09:21 PM
1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

Why? You say Navicache cachers should place caches as per Navicache rules. Why can&#39;t GC.Com cachers place by GC.com rules?

So far, I don&#39;t see any issues, so why has there been so much gnashing of teeth about issues?

Others do see issues.

If this post has offended anyone please read it as my own opinion and note that it is not intended as a personal dig at anyone.

[paul.blitz]

Back to the thread of this discussion: conflict of interests.

Yes, I can fully appreciate the reasons that people feel there could be problems with a "rule maker" also being the "rule applier".

I can also see that the GAGB guidelines will be created by a group on a committee, with much input from the members, and they may even be APPROVED by the members. So in THAT case, who *is* the rule-maker?

If you are going to suggest that a committee member should not be a cache approver for that reason, then you may end up having to exclude much of the GAGB membership for the same reason&#33;

Ok, what is the current situation? GC.COM decide the guidelines, and GC.COM apply the guidelines when approving caches. The guidelines may be formally written down (as many are), but may also be merely "spoken, and infomal" guidelines.

So how do things get worse by allowing GAGB committee members to assist in the guideline creation process and act as cache approvers?

There are actually plenty of cases where the rule-makers are also the rule-appliers: look at many organisations or charities, where the committee / trustees make the rules, and are also the group that apply the rules. (Real example: the Hospital Radio where I am on the committee has the power to create "station rules"; it is at the same time that group of people who decide if the rules have been broken, and the action to taken. I&#39;m sure this is the case in MANY similar organisations).

OK, I appreciate that this does not make the concept good, I merely note that it frequently happens.

Perhaps it might be sensible given the controversy, at least until the new committe has found its feet and created rules etc, that any GC.COM approvers do not stand for election on the GAGB committee.


I&#39;m sure there will remain a difference of opinion... as there will about other issues. But there is a simple solution: if someone stands who YOU are not happy with, do not vote for them. If you don&#39;t find the potential "conflict of interests" to be a problem (maybe because you know how THAT PERSON will handle it) then you might want to vote FOR them.

I also hope that everyone is big enough to accept that they might be in the minority after the voting, and will have to accept a committee that includes people they do not, themselves, approve of.



Paul

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Icenians+Aug 1 2003, 09:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians @ Aug 1 2003, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 09:21 PM
1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

Why? You say Navicache cachers should place caches as per Navicache rules. Why can&#39;t GC.Com cachers place by GC.com rules?
[/b][/quote]
erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site


So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.


And if Navicache adjust THEIR guidelines for cache approval to take onboard the GAGB ones too, then you have the same sort of requirement on Navicache too (the landowner guidlelines will apply in any case....).


Paul

[Icenians]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 10:01 PM

erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site


So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.


And if Navicache adjust THEIR guidelines for cache approval to take onboard the GAGB ones too, then you have the same sort of requirement on Navicache too (the landowner guidlelines will apply in any case....).


Paul

Like I said in an earlier post. I&#39;ll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Kev

[Lassitude]

Well here we go again. I think we could all do ourselves a favour stepping back from this and counting to ten. Arguments are very difficult to solve if both sides have a differing opinion. The simple fact is that nobody knows what the GAGB will develop into in the long run and certain teams have concerns about this. As was said in a previous post &#39;Let&#39;s agree to disagree&#39; and leave it at that. The majority decision will stand and at the end of the day if Geocaching.com creator Jeremy says he approves of it that that is that. If you as a team are not happy with the decision then Navicache and geocahingworldwide need more caches&#33; I don&#39;t mean that disrespectfully but I suspect if the GAGB had an endorsement from Jeremy would put an end to this.

Thanks

Chris

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Lassitude@Aug 1 2003, 11:57 PM
Well here we go again. I think we could all do ourselves a favour stepping back from this and counting to ten. Arguments are very difficult to solve if both sides have a differing opinion. The simple fact is that nobody knows what the GAGB will develop into in the long run and certain teams have concerns about this. As was said in a previous post &#39;Let&#39;s agree to disagree&#39; and leave it at that. The majority decision will stand and at the end of the day if Geocaching.com creator Jeremy says he approves of it that that is that. If you as a team are not happy with the decision then Navicache and geocahingworldwide need more caches&#33; I don&#39;t mean that disrespectfully but I suspect if the GAGB had an endorsement from Jeremy would put an end to this.

Thanks

Chris

In THIS case, I think we can NOT agree to disagree.

I put forward a simple concept: Icenians took something that is 100% obvious, and then says he can&#39;t agree with it.

Next, I will say that a grey plastic bag is NOT a black plastic bag, Iceniance will then say "I don&#39;t agree, so we&#39;ll need to agree to diasagree"&#33;

Can someone ELSE (not Icenians, please) explain to me the problem with the comment:

erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site

So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.

... IF GC.COM take on an extra set of guidelines from GAGB, then there WILL be, without any questions, 3 sets of guidelines that may apply to a cache placement in UK.


Paul

[Kouros]

Won&#39;t Landowner Guidelines, and GAGB guidelines all be the same thing? The GC.com guidelines will surely make up a portion of both the previous, and there would therefore, ultimately, only be one set?

Or have I missed the baton?

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 2 2003, 12:20 PM
Won&#39;t Landowner Guidelines, and GAGB guidelines all be the same thing? The GC.com guidelines will surely make up a portion of both the previous, and there would therefore, ultimately, only be one set?

Or have I missed the baton?

With luck, most landowners WILL accept the GAGB guidelines.

However, I can see that some landowners may ask for extra rules (eg: British Waterways might ask that no caches be placed within 6 ft of a canal): the best solution would be to incorporate those into the GAGB rules.

However, that MIGHT not always be possible (lets imagine someone who INSISTS that caches on their land may ONLY be visited in the dark&#33: that would confilct with HCC guidelines, so you then have to hold a special set of rules for THAT landowner.

Hopefully the exceptions would be few & far between.

So, no, I don&#39;t think you missed the baton.


Paul

[Chris n Maria]

:unsure: let me get this straight.

So Paul what you are suggesting is that any new rules added at the request of landowners is additive? Every new rule adds to the existing set of rules and is then aplied to the entire country?

Won&#39;t we end up with an incredibly restrictive set of rules?
won&#39;t most of these rules not be required by most landowners?

So for example the Forestry Comission says that it will allow caches but only with some sort of letterbox stamp - does that mean we will loose all content in UK caches?

What if the national Trust says that all caches must be in a container with the Big Brother logo on them - will that aply to all UK caches? :

Surely if a landowner wants extras - they only apply to their land?

If I&#39;m friends with a local farmer and he says that the best place to plant the cache is inside his drystone wall - surly that should be approved?

Confused of Essex

[The Cuthberts]

I just noticed this thread on GC.com that seemed to reinforce some of the recent discussions about local guidelines/rules versus those decreed by GC.com.

GC.com discussion on approvers

It looks like GC.com are &#39;devolving&#39; the creation of local rules to those that can deal with them more appropriately.

It&#39;s a fairly new thread so it&#39;ll be interesting to see what other regionals jump into the topic.

Andy

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 4 2003, 08:47 AM
So Paul what you are suggesting is that any new rules added at the request of landowners is additive? Every new rule adds to the existing set of rules and is then aplied to the entire country?

Won&#39;t we end up with an incredibly restrictive set of rules?
won&#39;t most of these rules not be required by most landowners?

That&#39;s the problem ... but think of the alternative with many flavors of rules and guidelines. Certain land (FE, NT and so on) are marked on OS maps but let&#39;s take the example of HCC land ... how does an approver distinguish between who owns the land?

[BugznElm&#39;r]

I would venture a guess that most of the issues/disagreements surrounding the GAGB and GC have had little/nothing to do with geocachers feeling that the HCC guidelines were wrong or silly but it had more to do with the fact that most geocachers didn&#39;t feel they had a hand to play in it or were asked if this is what they wanted. Some of us know the history behind the guidelines but I believe that most do not. They imaging scenarios where discussion might have gone badly, permissions withdrawn, caches removed and the game restricted. At the end of the day you can&#39;t blame cachers for saying "not in my name" or "I didn&#39;t ask for that".

In future, much more transparency is needed to prevent these problems otherwise it risks further distrust from the "cacher on the ground" and accusations of being a closed "magic circle" organization.

[fiddo]

I venture to point out, that as geocachers, "playing " on the LANDOWERS land is by invertation & by their (rules) guidlines, & is not negotiable.Why is it assumed that the GAGB,G.com or who ever is in any position to dictate. If said landowner, let us play but say, only every other Tuesday, what right do any of us have to say, No thanks, that does not fit with XYZ guidlines. it would appear to me that there is a clear need to have local guidelines, as one size can not fit all, inspite of some peoples wishes.

[Kouros]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 4 2003, 12:39 PM
In future, much more transparency is needed to prevent these problems otherwise it risks further distrust from the "cacher on the ground" and accusations of being a closed "magic circle" organization.

More transparency would be a very good thing.

Perhaps the site could have a "News" section, which would include the results of any meeting with any LOM, be they successful, failures, work in progress, or whatever.

Just an idea.

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 4 2003, 06:01 PM
Perhaps the site could have a "News" section, which would include the results of any meeting with any LOM, be they successful, failures, work in progress, or whatever.

Excellent idea. It may also help avoid problems of the sort when people like me post stuff at the wrong time in negociations without realising the negociations are going on.

[Kouros]

It may also help avoid problems of the sort when people like me post stuff at the wrong time in negociations without realising the negociations are going on

But it would also be nice for others to be kept abreast of developments.

While the HCC negotiations were somewhat tentative, especially as they were the first major LOM to recognise Geocaching, perhaps future negotiations shouldn&#39;t be held behind closed doors?

Again, just a thought, which like all thoughts, may have flaws.

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 4 2003, 10:58 PM
But it would also be nice for others to be kept abreast of developments.

<snip>

Again, just a thought, which like all thoughts, may have flaws.

Agreed, it could be very good to keep members informed of what is being done.

There is, as you suggest a flaw which could jeopardise negotiations and the scenario is as follows, and YES &#33; it really did happen.

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don&#39;t even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Time to approach "Head Office".

If the local branch become aware that we are approaching their head office, they could make things much more difficult, or even impossible.

There is a situation right now, where the interested party does not want it publicised until all the "t"&#39;s are crossed and the "i"&#39;s dotted.

To protect the innocent, the names in the above have been changed. :lol:

That is not to say that we don&#39;t think a "news" service be a great addition to the site, it would be easy to implement too, particularly if it were part of the forums.

Thanks for the input.

[Kouros]

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don&#39;t even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Nowt as queer as folk, I guess.

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 4 2003, 08:47 AM
So Paul what you are suggesting is that any new rules added at the request of landowners is additive? Every new rule adds to the existing set of rules and is then aplied to the entire country?

Won&#39;t we end up with an incredibly restrictive set of rules?
won&#39;t most of these rules not be required by most landowners?

I think a lot would depend on what the potential "new guideline" is. Let&#39;s take my original example: (hypothetically) BW asks that no cache be place within 10 ft of a canal.

I may be wrong, but aren&#39;t pretty well all canals run by BW? In that case a guideline that says "don&#39;t place a cache within 10ft of a canal" would seem to slot in ok on a set of "national guidelines".

But, yes, I can see there MIGHT be other cases where a separate guideline is needed.

As long as it&#39;s a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But let&#39;s take them one at a time.... its a situation that MIGHT never actually happen, IF we can persuade landowners that our guidelines work ok.


And does it MATTER if we have a few rules that don&#39;t apply to some landowners? At least they will realise that we ARE trying to be sensible, and cover most eventualities. Might also make them feel guilty if they ask for something special :-)



paul