nobby.nobbs

I'm glad to see that you're taking people's considerations so lightly. And thank you for permission to notify those in authority of whether they are happy.

Paul feel as corrupted as you want though I'd have to say that you're unbelievably naive bearing in mind your career. You were the one who chose to take an image of a glamour star wearing a t-shirt with a web site name on it, doing an explicit sign language sign around a gps. I may be wrong, but you appear to be the person scheduling your build up events to correspond to work and gala events to celebrate the seedier side of society. It does make me wonder whether your judgement has become blurred. I do wonder whether there is even the slightest chance by way of gossip or chance remark, that people might attend the actual event on the off chance of you taking some actresses on the day. Or maybe you're considering taking some, not that large a step, as a special treat for your fans. Now I have no moral objection to people watching pornography or making it, I'm just a little worried when it becomes linked, in any way however small, to a family hobby and family events. There's no agenda against you Paul, just a reaction to your bad judgement and a consideration as to whether you have done irrecovable damage to the event.

Thanks Dave. Clear, well said and hopefully everyone will be able to work with it.

By the way, thanks andalusite for entering into the discussion and trying to resolve the situation . So how do we stand on a campsite which does not allow non campers ? Again isn't this a similar situation where if I don't want to camp I don't attend that event or if I don't want to travel via boat I don't attend that event. It is open to all, anyone CAN attend if they choose to camp. Just like I CAN attend an event that involves a boat trip if I choose to do that. No one is setting out to find campsite that do not allow day visitors. It just happens that sometimes they don't and there's no easy alternative. In those rare events it should be ok to still list the event.

I must have explained that wrong. There was the costs of travel to the island, but I was talking about the entrance fee of the island. I could not attend that event without paying that fee no matter if I grew wings. So the entrance fee. The entrance costs to access the location was approx £15 for a family. Which equates to an entrance fee onto a campsite. Leaving a grey area of "reasonable fees" will only cause problems in the future.

It will not, because £20 is not a reasonable charge for day visitors. And yet, one reviewer did consider that amount to be a reasonable fee to charge people to attend the event at brownsea island. How do we resolve this? In the example of camping events a fee of this size would be a rare occasion. Yet an event at a national trust site would nearly always. Events have been published that required people to spend that much. I'm happy that they do, I can choose whether or not to pay it. Why is camping under a different rule?

Thanks for your opinion Dave and andalucite. This thread was due to a few people having conversations over several events and is nothing to do with excluding people, secret little ingroups of friends or anything similar. It was to try and understand why camping events appeared to be under a constraint that other events weren't. I appreciate the clarification that reasonable fees are allowable. This issue was that it was generally believed that it would not be possible to EVER get a camping event listed if the site charged for day visitors. It was therefore the case that sometimes an event at a great site wouldn't be allowed and a seperate event held so that those not able to or those not wishing to pay the entry fee could log the event. So some sites were written off the potential list. I listed one event that was held at brownsea island in dorset. GC30D5A on that site they list the charges that a person would have to pay for the ferry rides over to the island and then a seperate landing fee for all people not members of the national trust I'm not sure how this is not excluding those people not members of the national trust or those not willing to pay the landing fee? and how the landing fee for entry onto the island is in any way different from the fee charged to enter the camp site national trust costs for landing this site show that a family would be expected to pay approx £15 to come onto the island to log the event, as well as the costs of the ferry. This is quite close to the fees charged to camp for the night at lots of the camping events I have attended. So all that I am asking in essence is that it is clearly stated that it is possible to arrange a camping event at any campsite that charges a fee of, for instance, less than £20 for entrance to the site. I would hope that it wouldn't be very often that this would be needed to be used , but that it will leave open organisers to not have to stress about running a seperate actual event down the road at a pub. I would expect it would be rare that the site would charge much more than a nominal fee for a day visitor and thus leave everyone free to set up the events on the site for everyone campers and visitors to enjoy and hopefully encourage more to camp next time because they get to see what it's like on the site and not what the local pub looks like. I'll take back the request that we be able to almost insist that people camp, thus hopefully allowing the underlying thread that I am trying to exclude people or have a little clique of friends etc etc etc.

I'm assuming you missed bits of the thread while you read it Tim. It's already been established that you can't compare other caches to events. The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be. This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted . I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only. A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?

It's great that you enjoy camping but why do feel that you have to coerce other people to join you? Who's trying to coerce anyone? They are the ones that are asking to come to a camping event. But we're yet to get a decent reply as to why it's ok to have people have to go on a boat and pay for that and for the admittance to islands or estates, it's ok for americans to have events that require people to own boats or stay overnight for their events. No one seems to be able to point out exactly where it says that it's not allowed for camping events to say that you have to pay for admission and camp. Only camping events, and only in this country, is it necessary to have the event in a location that is accessible for free by anyone who might want to drop in for a few seconds because they have the right to log the cache. Boat trips are not required to have the actual event on the quayside for a couple of hours, events within payable parks are not required to hold the actual event in the free car park or nearby for a couple of hours. They are published without problem all around the world. UK campers have a special seperate rule that states that they must always have free and complete access to all cachers regardless if they wish to camp or not. Yet this rule doesn't appear to be written down anywhere. We do not need to post a request on the feedback forum as there is nothing stopping other reviewers from publishing these other events and no obvious rule that stops cachers publishing camping only events. So there's no need for Jeremy to be asked anything. Just have the same rule applied to us that the other events have.

Thanks Paul, good to get a reply. A couple of points. Could you explain what criteria the reviewers use to decide which changes the community want they they will raise themselves with Jeremy and those that they cast to the vagrancies of the feedback forum? And I'd like to try and understand how these events are ok, this country and the USA that require a ferry ride, surely to be the same criteria the actual event would require there to be an hour or two, that's all, on the dockside of the mainland for those who cant or wont use the ferry? gc30d5a gc2r688 gc2rjmz And this one specifically can say that you must come over the night before or own your own boat: gc22c87

When all is said and done there does seem to be a general differing of opinions and some people seem to be unsure of their exact position on the matter. Which is what is good about a public forum where those who interpret and implement the rule can come and explain and maybe be persuaded in an open forum and not behind closed doors. It's not about lambasting the reviewers, who do a difficult role, but we've seen that when some "rules" that appear to be set in stone; like using pubs as directions, are looked at and investigated they tend to fall apart. This sort of thing should be done on here, not in quiet chats, not in meetings that involve only a select few, not as a result of quiet rumblings. People should be able and honest with their full feelings and have those looked at by those who implement the rules. Then a discussion can be held that resolves the matter. I'll say it again as there appears to have been some deliberate misinterpretation of the thread. There are times that it's not possible to have non campers attend a camping event or any other type of event for that matter that involves paying money for mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, boat rides etc. It should be ok for those events to still be listed and those people who don't wish to pay don't have to log. Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day? Yes they only fool themselves and if the event setter hasn't had to go out of their way to accomodate their refusal to take part then so be it, It's just why should the event planner be placed in the position of having to go to the extra work for those that don't wish to actually take part.

Slightly confused, just looked at the website as had been told last weekend that there was a great camping event sorted where we all could park up and chill out and generally have some fun regardless if we wanted to see the inside of yet another town hall. I also had been told that you had realised that there was a date issue and that you had changed the event so that people could easily attend the actual mega pirate event then drive to your event. It's going to be one heck of a day to wake up in derbyshire and then get down to see the best bits of yours. It's great that groudspeak have not only granted you your mega status but are sponsoring you too.

I thought you were saying that you support extra requirements for attendees? Such as not being able to log the event unless they are there at 2 a.m.? That seems the opposite of what Mad H@ter was saying. He was making the point that exclusive events should be allowed, e.g. on a campsite which doesn't allow non-camping visitors. I suspect the rule is there to discourage events that are deliberately exclusive. For example; only members of a particular 4x4 club are allowed, or only people who know the organiser, or only members of the Labour Party, or only cachers with more than 1000 finds. A non-visitor campsite event is less clear cut, as a lot of people have tents or can borrow them; but it's still the same principle. With no rules you would have the same half-dozen cachers meeting every week at the same place and logging an "event" every time, even though others in the area would like to take part but are excluded. Sort of OK but not really an event. Personally I think that events shouldn't be "caches" anyway and should be kept separately as dates for your diary instead; perhaps you could add an "attended" note and have a count of events attended but it would make no difference to your overall "find" count. In fact it'd be better just to have details on Facebook with a simple link from the geocaching site's "Events" section. That way you could even get muggles to come along as well. And if you want to make it exclusive; then go ahead. Once it's not a cache type there's no need for restrictions, as it's not going to clutter up the local cache list anyway. Sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself clearly enough for you to understand my point. The argumentative additional logging requirements would be the only way that a camping event could be made exclusive if the current requirements are continued. Every type of cache limits those who can log it.5* caches stop people from logging them. Events on islands with limited or costly ferry rides stop people attending. If you don't like a type of cache then don't do them. People being allowed to log camping caches is the oddity. There is no requirement for owners of 5* caches to have a specific day every year that they bring them to a local pub for the rest of us to log them.:-)

Caches set for events....like piratemania then? I think mad hater phrased it far better than I did. Why should the event organisers for camping events have extra requirements on them to be able to list them? If an event is women only or requires a trip on a paid ferry crossing to an island they are listed and if u are male or not happy to pay too bad. If it happens that its possible for non campers to attend and The person setting it is happy for them to log then fine. If they can't or its felt u must camp then that's one smiley they can't have. There's nothing stopping non campers organising their own event at a Pub nearby .

Heaven forbid that rules are broken or interpreted ... So it would follow that it would be ok to say that the logbook will only be available between the hours of 2am and 3am and that the logbook is hidden on the edge of the campsite with its co ords being disclosed at a random time during the preceding day. Would this be within the interpreted rules?

It's as bad as saying, I want to log a scuba dive cache, could the owner please bring the container to a nearby pub so I can sign. Really curious regarding the validity of this rule and its interpretations as I believe there have been women only events and so on in America which might seem to suggest its a vague rule open to interpretation. I'm trying to make a point about inclusion not exclusion , people taking part not making the event adapt to their requirements

Should it be a requirement to camp to be able to log a camping event? Is it too much to ask that someone be required to actually camp overnight to be allowed to log the event. Events are open to all like all caches but some caches have special requirements, like being able to scuba dive or climb a cliff. So to log the event should you have to stay? Ok it's not a huge issue but it's such a shame when people turn up to camping events, grab the cache sheet and then are never seen again. they miss the opportunity to actually experience the actual event. There are way and means methods; like 2am events but why cant we just list the event honestly? We may as well have a log book at the entrance to the camp site for those people that just want the icon

Hard for anyone to monopolize , there is a ten cache limit. No one should have more than ten regardless of listing site. A database is maintained to monitor this.

Can someone please check. I could've sworn this was just meant to be a fun pointless hobby.

I take on board that I could and, indeed probably should have planned for myself a little better. I was also in a handy position of knowing a local to whom I did not refer. Please do not think I am joining in with any fight or arguments or discussions regarding events that I was fairly aware of in the run up to the mega, that is not my intention. This is fresh in everyone's minds, this is the time to discuss the mega in a constructively critical manner. Not to opportion blame, what's the point? Sometimes it's good to analyse and see what the good points were and what the bad points were. Thus allowing for the future to include the include, build upon that and avoid the bad. This is an event not just for old moaning gits like me. It's for people with hardly any or no caching experience. With hardly any or no planning experience. No I don't want to be spoon fed my experience of an area but neither do I want to know of any cacher having deciding at the last min to visit with no time to plan and to miss out on the items I mentioned. The reference to Scotland had it but the previous two didn't. It was good, people haven't stopped talking about it, surely that's the point? Embrace that and make sure you do it not say " the previous ones didn't have it" To agree with Keehootee. I'm a cacher. I spend time outdoors enjoying the fresh air. Any idea why we have to have megas in a building?

I know there may be widely differing opinions on this matter but I felt I should publicly say what I have been discussing with people. I'm sat in my tent pondering my experiences of mega Wales and feel let down due to wasted opportunities during my stay. The campsite , whilst adequate, was not up to the task of hosting large numbers of cachers. There appeared several others in the vicinity that offered better location, facilities , views and caching potential. I came to the area without any knowledge of , for instance , the ten best caches that showed the true beauty that the gower had to offer, must visit locations, the history and monuments , the local culture or where to eat. It was only when I was in a local pub that I discovered the " what's on " magazine , had this been distributed on my arrival I could have more fully experienced the stunning region I was visiting. When I attended the mega itself I was hoping to come away with the equivalent stories that my friends had about mega Scotland. Apart from the Welsh mayor, a dragon and a harpist there was nothing to let me know I was in Wales , I could've been in any town hall in any town. Is it not more than just a mega status? Should it not be about having a mega time, to come away with a feeling of having been to something special ? I can truly say I am looking forward to the nw mega, I already have a book to tantalize and excite me with the things I will see. I am sorry if my opinion upsets or annoys anyone, that is not my intention.

It's great that a guideline or rule ( however you wish to term it) has been written to try and resolve an issue that has arisen. Well done to all that have worked hard at this. Yes there will always be those people that through ignorance or pettyness decide to lie when they place a cache. They have always plagued our hobby especially those who take great pleasure in it and then standing on their hobby horse. There will be arguments of civil liberties, limited authority of elected representatives, and all the normal witterings of those who then refuse to actually do anything other than whine on forum pages. Just like the anarchists who refuse to vote in general elections and then moan about their government. There may not be many that vote for the GAGB, their choice when it is clear that the reviewers refer to the agreements made and administered by the committee and their members. We do need a group that represents cachers in the UK. America has one, it's called Groundspeak. they have lawyers and so on that will approach the authorities on their behalf. We do not. GS aren't likely to be bothered to actually do very much to keep caching going in this country. I've said it once and I'll say it again. The numbers that vote for the committee may not be large, but chances are it's higher than the numbers who are on this forum.....

As a thought and not wishing to stir up too much.... I see the argument re the GAGB on number of people that voice an opinion and their voices affecting everyone else in the country.... whats the proportion of cachers in this country that use or have commented in this thread?

On a side point and possibly help in a way. Clearly define a couple of questions, urban: built up area, anywhere that isn't countryside basically. is the cache overlooked by property ? to be totally honest i would love both of these to be options that were compulsory to have. then have the option to not include them in a pq. my major problem in life sorted. i want to do rural countryside caches and not have my pq's full of urban, overlooked caches. could be that i'm not alone. and that people when looking at these two fields to be ticked start to think, is this cache really worthwhile?

The unfortunate incident that created this situation was going to happen sooner or later due to the rise in the number of cachers and the number of caches. We have grabbed every opportunity over the years to spread the knowledge of the hobby to everyone who would listen and they have all come in their droves. This is not a bad thing except that there has always been the belief that "adequate permission" was the ability to get to the cache location without being arrested. The trouble with urban caching is that we need to ferret around to try and find the things and, with the best will in the world, that looks dodgy. It's not a matter that there's a great chance of any terrorist placing a bomb it's the fact that the police will be called and all I can say is " would you open an unknown box that you've been told could be a bomb"? It was only a couple of years ago that a bomb making factory was found in an urban environment of High Wycombe. The GAGB are the only national representative group for cachers in this country, to argue that they do not have the support of the majority of cachers is pointless, you don't like what they say and what the do in your name? Then next time they hold elections actually be a member and have your say. Let's not forget that all these caches with "adequate permission" could so easily be picked up in a couple of days by a police officer who has been instructed to collect anything that looks like it might be litter and the landowner knows nothing of.