Icenians

If we (in the UK) followed the US guidelines, we wouldn't have caches under bridges. We wouldn't have the Sidetracked series. To be honest, I doubt that would be a great loss to caching and the landowner has already said no caches on their property. That would be covered by landowners wishes wouldn't it? Which it isn't so makes it sort of redundant. However, it doesn't take a rule making organisation to host a website. One representative of what? 50 people? That isn't representative of cachers and I have a strong suspicion that a lot of these agreements would have happened anyway. Many of those in the database were arranged by one person and not the GAGB. I would imagine that a cacher that actually KNOWS the landowner is far more likely to get an agreement than someone from the other end of the country that has no knowledge of the landowner. Oh Please!. Someone once told me that when you start saying "If you don't like it you do it" you've lost the argument and run out of defence. I shouldn't need to vote for the GAGB Committee as I'm not a member. Being a non member of an organisation should mean that I remain unaffected by the decisions made by that committee. They are voted for by their membership to represent them, not everyone else. There were more votes cast in our Parish Council election! You cannot seriously equate the GAGB with government! We need a government, they supply services for the greater good of everyone in this country. They set the taxes we pay. And, do you seriously think that a politician is going to sort out my problem if it involves going against the party line? We don't NEED the GAGB. So, because 7 cachers got together in secret and came up with the GAGB and forced it upon the rest of us, I have to join the organisation and change it? I will stop trying to pi55 in when the GAGB stop telling me how to play what has to be the simplest game on the planet.

Except there hasn't really been a hue and cry.

Oh please! You just simply don't get it. Nearly everywhere else survives perfectly well without a bunch of busybodies trying to tell us how to play a game that involves hiding a plastic box!!! You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless! Many of us do contribute to the game. We do it by going out and placing caches, we do it by going out and finding caches. What we don't do is sit in judgement claiming a right to speak for all others based on 50 other people casting a ballot. Keeping caching going in this country, just like any other country, is not achieved by doing sweet fanny adams in a committee for 9 years. It's done by going out and placing caches. Just out of interest, why is it that a GAGB guideline is announced here? Do you guys now just openly set the rules for Groundspeak? The GAGB should have announced this on the GAGB site for THIER MEMBERS and let Groundspeak decide what rules they wish to follow. I would like to congradulate the GAGB on missing the point completely and saddling us with yet another stupid rule. As if the fact that the current GS set hadn't got big enough they had to call them a book!

All? Really? If that is the case why are there only two threads on this? One here and one on the gagb site. If GAGB were really interested in making all uk geocachers aware then why have they not even contacted opencaching.org.uk, not even posted on tc? They are not trying to educate cachers, they simply had a chat and came up with a guideline.

Or car parks! This really is all getting just a little beyond the ridiculous.

The information on who the person involved in the Wetherby Incident was, who his employer is, and what he was charged with. Were supplied to the Reviewers/GAGB Committee in a confidential communication. If the person wishes to reveal some or all of that information, or provides permission for the Reviewers/GAGB Committee to do so. We will immediately make that information public! We have been extremely lucky in the UK, that we have avoided major restrictions placed on our hobby Manchester Airport Exclusion Zone, hold tightly to the Airport Boundary. Because the person tasked to set it, was a Geocacher and persuaded his Superiors that a wider Exclusion Zone, was not needed. His Superiors wanted a 2-3 mile Exclusion Zone around the Airport as measured from the Airport Boundary. Geocacher gets reported to the Police, due to his behaviour being suspicious. By a Member of The Airport Watch Scheme. Sounds fine, he's near a Airport so there is a possibility of triggering such a event. This person was Challenged by Police at the cache location. Only the cache location was 20 Miles away from the Airport, but under the flight path! The Police made contact and requested that the cache was removed. They also suggested at that time, that all caches under "Flight Paths" be removed! In the case of the Flight Path it is a Dog Leg, not a straight Line. Now move that forward, and the Police "require all caches" under Flight Paths Removed. What affect would that have? Just think how heavily populated the sky's over and surrounding London alone are with Flight Paths! At a stroke a large area is put out of bounds to Geocaching. How much "Non Urban Areas" is under Flight Paths. Manchester Airport alone, has "Flight Paths" which avoid the majority of Population areas in and out of the Airport. Albert Docks Liverpool. A Geocacher searching for the cache, has Security Guards rush up to him, shouting "Put the Detonator Down"! They did this after watching him on CCTV. After the Wetherby Incident, Groundspeak instructed that a Cache be Archived, after contact was made with them. Expressing major concerns about Security Risks and the Impact any Security Alert would have in the area. That's one of the Ripples being felt after Wetherby, and that location was 200+ miles away. I've been in direct communications with two separate Police Forces, who made contact after the Wetherby Incident. Neither being the Yorkshire Police. More Ripples being felt. I've already seen a comment about the Royal Parks Banning Geocaching on Security Grounds. That is the sort of attitude we have to turn around, if a simple Guideline helps to do that, then that is in our best interest. Someone has quoted the Inspector on the BBC Interview, I can tell you, in the interview he was referring to wishing to see something applied that is the same as the Met Agreement. Why do I know this, because it was raised in a conversation with the Journalist before both both interviews took place.I got interviewed in Manchester (in the BBC Centre Car Park) at midday, the Inspector was interviewed in the afternoon. The interviewer would have had a "Off Camera" discussion first about the questions going to be asked and background information. For those who don't know the Met Agreement (which covers the Governments Security Zone in London), each cache owner has to supply a photograph of the container, a written description of how it is hidden, and attached to this is a map showing the location. The article was balanced, what you don't see is the twenty minutes on the cutting floor from the On Film Interview I gave, so how much of the Interview with the Inspector was cut? Did he actually have stronger suggestions, that he would like to see applied? So what is the lesser of 2 evils, applying the Advice given by the ACPO? Or applying what the Inspector in the Yorkshire Force, would like to see apply? The GAGB after consulting the ACPO and discussing the advice given with the Reviewers, created a simple Guideline. If any one and this is aimed at the Anti GAGB Commentators, believe they can do better! Then step up and take part in all the negotiations that will take place. I don't mean the GAGB-Community ones. I mean the GAGB-Police Forces-ACPO ones. Take time off work to negotiate with them, attend meetings with them. The GAGB may not be perfect! But at least they are willing to work to protect YOUR HOBBY! Can you actually say the same? Here is being completely open, when I offered to do the On Camera Interview, the offer was made because no cacher local to Wetherby was wiling to do so in the time frame needed, despite the Journalist making a public request for someone to do so. Why? Possibly because they did not want to be identified as a Geocacher in the area. So i offered so that the article would at least have the UK Communities side. At the time, I was not aware that the BBC would be covering my travel expenses. On the day of the interview, I got a phone call asking me to go to BBC Manchester, at 09:00. I arrived at BBC Manchester at around 12:00. I spent over 20 minutes doing the on camera interview, and then drove home. A trip of 124 miles. I'd already offered to attend discussions with local Yorkshire cachers and the Yorkshire Police, that would have been out of my own pocket. And would have involved travelling over 200 miles. So if I'm prepared to give up my time and cover all my own costs to protect Geocaching in the UK, are the detractors prepared to do the same? Or are they just going to sit at their computers and be totally negative! Lets see people add their Names to a list of people, willing to give up their Time and at their own expense to aid in dealing with the negotiations? So I'll start Dave Palmer-Deceangi-Mancunain Pyrocacher Anyone else? Deci So, I think most of us that see the GAGB as somewhat irrelevant have posted suggestions in this thread and kept those posts in the spirit of consultation with suggestions. For this we get a further lecture from a reviewer about how little we do for the hobby and how negative we are. Why oh why is it that whenever a view is expressed that is contrary to that of an organisation, do we who oppose it get labeled as negative? Some of us believe that the GAGB has had a negative effect on caching. This thread was about consultation on the guideline and nothing to do with anti GAGB sentiments. I think most of us managed to keep to that in this thread. If I started a caching organisation that had guidelines that you disagreed with, entered into agreements with land owners that you disagreed with, and generally went around claiming to represent you, would you not make some noise in opposition to it? So far the reviewer from GC is the one that appeared in the news, the general public has heard diddly squat from 'our elected reps'. The other listing sites have heard nothing from 'our elected reps'. This was fine when the thread was a GC thread stating that GC had adopted the GAGB guideline but now that the GAGB are 'consulting' they really mean they are talking to the one site they feel they have any influence with. They ignore the rest. If they really want to represent us then they should be out there posting on all the listing sites. These people stood up to take the job, the put their hand up for it. They HAVE to take the rough with the smooth. When they do nothing they should expect criticism for it, especially from those that feel they are a waste of time. When the main listing site reviewers and GAGB get together and dream up new rules that do not solve the issue but just serve to make life more difficult for the cacher then can you really be surprised that some of us feel they are not doing the job they should be doing? The other hobbies I have all have associations that fight for the members and the hobbies. They FIGHT to improve access, they FIGHT to have laws changed, they EDUCATE their members on how to play nice with the other groups that oppose those hobbies. They PUBLICISE the good things that are done. What they don't do is come up with rules. Yes they have guidelines on how to behave in confrontations, but nearly all of it is education and promoting the good side of the hobby. Seriously, if an association wants to REALLY represent and work for cachers then it should be out their making a noise. They should be shouting to the non cachers about CITO, they should be fighting for access to closed off areas, educating the cachers on good caching, working with other organisations that have all these same access issues. Instead, they have an out of date database, a forum that pretty much replicates the stuff found here, the vast majority of cachers have never heard of them, and they hide in the shadows when they actually get an opportunity to stand up and be recognised. Is it any wonder I have zero respect for them?

Can I suggest that apart from talking to the ACPO who are probably not cachers, you get some input from cachers who are also police officers. They will at least have a view of this from both sides of the fence. Labelling the cache externally is only going to work if the label can be seen without moving the cache. Just because a cache was placed in a certain way does not mean that it will be but back in the same way by another finder. I really think that some thought should be given to a solution via education rather than via yet more rules. A lot of people think there are too many rules already. Adding rules does not stop people placing caches that disregard them. Seriously consider whether any of this is needed at all! We have had one high profile incident in ten years. Find out how the Met manage this as they seem to cope. Find out what is done in the US where they have had bomb scares from caches. Everyone stop getting all alarmist over the future of caching in urban UK

But by putting a tick in the "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." box, you are agreeing to be bound by the GAGB's rules. Show me a cache I have listed that agrees with those rules?

this is one of the main reasons that I will not list caches here anymore. I have no beef with an association representing it's members nor do I have a problem with them imposing their guidelines on their members. Nearly all associations do this. The problem I have is that what is now happening is exactly what we were categorically told would not happen back when GAGB was started. The promise was that GC reviewers would not hold people to the GAGB guidelines. So, now the gagb make the rules for the rest of us and we are told to swallow it. I'm sorry but the police have been accussed of over reacting to this but so is caching. One police seargent does not have the power to make caching illegal. I suspect that nobody has the power to stop anyone hiding a plastic box on their own land no matter how close it is to the A1 so using phrases such as caching could be made illegal is just nonsense. If this was the case then carrying rucksacks and parking cars would all be illegal as well. All that adding additional rules to the game has achieved is a bit of free advertising for the GAGB. As I've said before, and have others, labelling does not stop this from happening, the cache that caused this was clearly labelled. Labels are only any good if you can see them so labels on boxes that by their very nature are hidden will not stop this happening again. Likewise the claim that permission would stop this is nonsense. Any passerby could report suspicious behaviour. My point to all this is that any hurried and rushed in rule will not fix this, will not stop it happening again, and will not save caching. If rules must be implemented then they should be rules that actually make sense and have a reasonable chance of success. As has been stated numerous times, the police in London cope with this and have done for a long time now. Useless and ineffective rules are not the way to go forward.

Now you see the problem with this idea is that I have never believed in the need, and still don't, for the existance of the GAGB. By becoming a member I would then be agreeing to be bound by the GAGB's rules for cache placement etc. I do not wish to be involved as I do not think we need such an organisation.

The figure of 50 were the number of votes cast in the last election WHERE I BOTHERED TO ASK and were supplied by the then chairman. As to numbers that are members, well historically the gagb have never really had a handle on that. One of those votes that year was mine, and was counted, yet I was later told I wasn't a member.

Groundspeak is one of the listing sites, the biggest. They have a set of rules, guidelines are really rules when they are enforced, for listing caches on their site which is only fair and proper. The GAGB is an elected, last time I asked by 50 people, committee who claim to represent cachers but I doubt they ever admit just how few they represent when in discussions. They have a set of caching guidelines that their MEMBERS are meant to follow. They have no say over non members behaviour. Of course, as the GAGB only really work with Groundspeak reviewers, for example nobody at opencaching was consulted, their guidelines are enforced by listing site reviewers IF THEY CHOOSE TO. There are no caching laws set either by the GAGB or anyone else. Each listing site has their own set of rules, including those that many think have none, for listing caches on thier own site.

Something very like this does in fact exist elsewhere

There will be snowball fights in hell before the letters GAGB appear on any cache listing of mine. I'm not a member and they do NOT represent me in any way. If I list a cache I agree to the published guidelines of the listing site.

This has to be a joke. There exists a nice database full of the exact coordinates of every single plastic box out there and all the police forces need is access to it or a person who can access it. A quick call or search and you have a list of names of people who can lead someone straight to it. All this talk of 'what if' and 'if a terrorist did' is rubbish. No matter how many rules you list it will not stop someone planting a bomb if they want. You can bet they won't follow the guidelines The solution to this problem is not to warn everyone at the box but to let the people who will be alerted know where they are and have access to it. Labelling is pointless, and I don't care what the ACPO say as I bet they don't cache. I doubt they appreciate the waste of time that sticking labels on something that can't be seen until it's wriggled out of it's hiding place. No amount of rules will stop this happening again but giving the police access to the locations may stop the escalation as someone will stop and think first. This is typical of Britain. Something happened therefore we must make up a rule to stop it happening again! That never really works for anything else does it. Just out of interest, caches have caused bomb scares in the US before, do they have to jump through these pointless hoops?

Er, place some and wait. Someone will find them.

My nearest unfound is 0.3 of a mile. Really must take the GPS with me one of these days while walking to the post office I don't tend to cache alone anymore and so most of the time I'm caching with friends on trips away.

If I don't log in the field on my iPhone then you simply won't get a log at all. Why do people care what kit a cacher uses to find a cache or to log it? It isn't the kit that is the 'problem', it's the person typing the log. I'll usually put in about the same amount of effort in my log as I think the cache owner put in placing the cache. I have caches out there that took ages to place and regularly get double logs to fit the whole finders log in. I have another that is just a simple cache that usually gets a line or two. I know that there are people that just log the minimum they can but they probably are not interested in reading back their logs and simply logging to track their numbers. Each to their own. They do no harm to anyone.

Just out of interest, why the Travel Bug section? These are not travel bugs nor are they meant to travel. They are just a signature item.

Couldn't agree more. They are just signature trade items that happen to have a website geared up for trading them. Putting them in with trackables or coins and locking threads about them just makes GC look silly and uninformed about what they actually are. It also perpetuates the myth that they are trackable like a coin or TB on another site. Still, i'll keep trading and dropping them off in caches I like.

You can't track 'it'. The tracking is really just something to tell the owner where a tag DESIGN ended up. You can't track an individual tag. They are just a signature item for people to collect and swap that has a number allowing the owner to see how their tag spread out. It really baffles me how GC could consider them in any way anything like competition but then I gave up trying to fathom Groundspeak out a long time ago.

Nope. Gave up on it

Really? You find a maximum of 6 characters a long code? Not all caches have these and they don't have to be used, it's an option available to the cache owner.

Where do you see anybody demanding thanks and respect? Just one link will satisfy my curiosity. OK, I'm not going to go crawling back through all these threads looking as I doubt I'll find anything to satisfy you on that front anyway. I'll rephrase it instead. It seems to me as if some cache owners are expecting thanks and gratitude for placing a cache and that thanks and gratitude must come in some form that only they approve of. Of course, having never had a blank log or a TFTC log as an owner I would actually know what that feels like so best I stop commenting

Sorry but finding a cache first is nothing like cheating at an exam. One may effect your career etc the other means nothing! It just isn't worth all this fuss!