Jump to content

GAGB Urban Geocaching Guideline


Recommended Posts

Due to the Wetherby Geocache Incident, as part of a project between the GAGB, The UK & Ireland Reviewers aided by Groundspeak. To contact all Police Forces in the UK, in regards to Geocaching in their Force Areas. A initial approach was made to the ACPO-Association of Chief Police Officers, from initial feedback received. The GAGB after discussions with the Reviewers have produced the following Urban Caching Guideline

 

“Urban caches should be placed to minimise the chance of security alerts. It is essential that micros and larger are marked externally as a geocache with the relevant listing site reference (eg: GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx or OCxxxxxx). Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening. Cache pages must contain the following wording: This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines”

 

Moving forward all caches submitted in Urban areas, will be required to comply with this Guideline.

 

More information can be found here Here

 

Currently Active caches in Urban Areas, will as per usual be Grandfathered In. But it is hoped that these cache owners will adjust their caches to comply with the Guideline

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

Link to comment

Due to the Wetherby Geocache Incident, as part of a project between the GAGB, The UK & Ireland Reviewers aided by Groundspeak. To contact all Police Forces in the UK, in regards to Geocaching in their Force Areas. A initial approach was made to the ACPO-Association of Chief Police Officers, from initial feedback received. The GAGB after discussions with the Reviewers have produced the following Urban Caching Guideline

 

“Urban caches should be placed to minimise the chance of security alerts. It is essential that micros and larger are marked externally as a geocache with the relevant listing site reference (eg: GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx or OCxxxxxx). Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening. Cache pages must contain the following wording: This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines”

 

Moving forward all caches submitted in Urban areas, will be required to comply with this Guideline.

 

More information can be found here Here

 

Currently Active caches in Urban Areas, will as per usual be Grandfathered In. But it is hoped that these cache owners will adjust their caches to comply with the Guideline

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

 

A couple of questions....

 

1. How are you defining urban?

2. Why are you asking for the reference to the guideline on the cache page?

Link to comment

This is a good move, and the GAGB have acted swiftly as entirely necessary. There is some real positivity that can come out of this, too - it's the perfect situation for bringing back Virtual Caches, especially suited as they are to urban locations. Bring back the virtual, get rid of the urban physical. Even 10g (a third of a film canister) of plastic explosive can kill. As such, all containers would be considered a thread by police. The cache size differential doesn't solve the issue - you still look suspicious.Arousing suspicion in our hobby is bad publicity, and every time there is an incident like this one, it puts our whole pastime in jeopardy. It would be of no surprise to me if some councils banned Geocaching based on a reaction to this - there's certainly plenty of arguments you can put against caching, and of course plenty that are positive too. However, by permitting micro caches in urban locations you present more problems. One of them being cache quality, of course, as the maxim to hide (generally) the biggest cache you can in any location goes out of the window. You are now going to be actively encouraged to hide urban micros and nanos, by default. The bigger problems than cache quality, however, are that the big issue is being missed - three-quarters of the problem with urban caching is the suspicion aroused by those undertaking the find! Acting in a "suspicious" manner generally gets people intrigued and that's when the police get called in. The reason people sometimes feel uncomfortable, suspicious and like they are being watched is because they ARE being watched because they DO look suspicious! Only hiding micro or smaller caches is not the solution because the suspicion is still there. 10 grams of plastic explosive takes up about a quarter of a 35mm film canister and could easily kill, and the police know this, so they won't think twice about viewing a microcache as a potential threat.

 

 

It's time to grasp the nettle and push for Virtual Caches which are the perfect solution to the Urban Caching problem. Hiding suspicous looking objects in supermarket car parks, town centres, near public transport buildings and around busy urban locations is the worst kind of negative PR possible. Not to mention the grot factor and risk of glass shards and needles! If we want our hobby to grow in a positive and forward-looking manner, this should apply to all caches whether new or old, and if it means some of mine have to go... so be it.

 

What is Urban? A cache in an area where one would be more likely to wear smart shoes than walking boots.

Edited by PopUpPirate
Link to comment

Tim, The definition of Urban from wiki: An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets. We're trying to address locations where there are lots of muggles so higher chance of bomb scares

 

Getting the placer to include the guideline on the cache ensures that they are aware of it and gets the message out to other cachers.

 

Dave

Link to comment

Tim, The definition of Urban from wiki: An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets. We're trying to address locations where there are lots of muggles so higher chance of bomb scares

 

Getting the placer to include the guideline on the cache ensures that they are aware of it and gets the message out to other cachers.

 

Dave

 

By that definition any park or woodland within a towns limits is urban. So no more camo bags, ammo cans, nicely sprayed and camoed boxes - unless they're well out in the countryside?

 

It won't affect any of my hides - or my finds to any great extent - but it's going to do nothing to advance the game for anybody already playing .... and all for the sake of one poorly considered hide :(

Link to comment

I applaud the actions but what is an "Urban" cache? If I live on a tree-lined avenue and place a small tupperware in the roots, is that Urban or rural? What about placing a cache behind a bus shelter in a hamlet? Is that urban because there are a couple of houses nearby or is it rural because there are only a couple of houses nearby? Reviewers cannot be expected to know the GZ and whether "common sense" has been applied so how do we resolve this? A bit more clarity is needed I feel.

With regards to micros and nanos in urban areas being discouraged. WHY? I love em. OK, I hate the little logs in nanos or trying to extract a logbook with tweezers but seriously, common sense tells you that cache sizes will be bigger in areas where there is more space. It seems perfectly natural to me to expect smaller sized containers in towns and villages and regulars or ammo cans along, say, a tree-lined footpath.

Just my two-penneth worth....

Link to comment

Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening.

 

That's a good idea, but try this:

 

Take a clear tupperware box, and put the usual assortment of stuff in it. Close the box, and look at the side. You won't really be able to see what's in it, because the tupperware isn't transparent, it's translucent. So if you want to check that it isn't a bomb, you'll still need to open it.

 

Maybe we need to find a source of truly transparent boxes.

 

But I'm not sure that would work either. Consider, for example, a box covered with a couple of bricks. You'd have to move the bricks before you could look at what's in the box, and then you'd be looking down at the top, which probably has a big "HARMLESS" label on it obstructing your view. So you'd have to move the box in order to inspect it, and although I'm not an expert at bombs, I'd be reluctant to move a possible bomb.

 

So I'm not sure that this idea solves the problem.

 

So, let's define the problem. The problem is, someone looks at a box where there's no reason for a box to be, and sees someone "acting suspiciously" around it, and calls the police. The police need a way to safely verify that it isn't a bomb, at very low cost, and very quickly.

 

I can't actually see any way to do this, other than by size. If it's too small to be a bomb, then you don't have to look inside it. Maybe what's needed, is for all urban caches to be less than a certain size, that size to be determined by advice from a bomb expert.

Link to comment

I can't actually see any way to do this, other than by size. If it's too small to be a bomb, then you don't have to look inside it. Maybe what's needed, is for all urban caches to be less than a certain size, that size to be determined by advice from a bomb expert.

 

So then you have a situation where practically every new urban cache is a nano - with every finder spending twice as long looking shifty and arousing suspicion while they search..... and add in that now the Police aren't going to be able to easily find or identify whatever it was the potential terrorist was playing with.

They're either going to shrug and assume that there's a lot more nutters wandering around than there used to be - or play safe and assume that this time it's a REALLY well hidden bomb, and pull out all the stops....... :blink:

Link to comment

Tim the ripples from that one cache are currently being felt up and down the country, I personally have to deal with contact to Groundspeak from 2 Separate Police Forces outside of Yorkshire. The Guideline was implemented after a initial contact, with the ACPO and feedback which was obtained. This was discussed by the GAGB and Reviewers as to the best way to implement it, at as much of a minimum impact to the community as possible. No heavy handing is being applied.

 

As for the wording, all caches on MOD Access Land, has been required to display a specific warning for many years. No issues have arisen due to that. The wording just confirms to members that the cache complies with the Guideline before they search for it. The Reviewers are just human and not all seeing, neither do we go out and physically check cache locations before publication.

 

One cache has already suffered, due to the ripples of that one cache. And that was not in a heavily built up area. But was in a location that was causing a security concern, enough for official contact to be made with Groundspeak. The contact specifically mentioning the incident at Wetherby. Geocaching is at the moment highly in peoples minds.

 

Deci

 

I applaud the actions but what is an "Urban" cache? If I live on a tree-lined avenue and place a small tupperware in the roots, is that Urban or rural? What about placing a cache behind a bus shelter in a hamlet? Is that urban because there are a couple of houses nearby or is it rural because there are only a couple of houses nearby? Reviewers cannot be expected to know the GZ and whether "common sense" has been applied so how do we resolve this? A bit more clarity is needed I feel.

With regards to micros and nanos in urban areas being discouraged. WHY? I love em. OK, I hate the little logs in nanos or trying to extract a logbook with tweezers but seriously, common sense tells you that cache sizes will be bigger in areas where there is more space. It seems perfectly natural to me to expect smaller sized containers in towns and villages and regulars or ammo cans along, say, a tree-lined footpath.

Just my two-penneth worth....

 

The definition of Urban from wiki: An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets. We're trying to address locations where there are lots of muggles so higher chance of bomb scares

 

I live in a Village which because it has a church can not be described as Hamlet, despite it's size, if you blink you've gone past it. Personally I would not describe that as Urban. Over time a better definition will evolve.

 

Also the Guideline does not discourage Nano and Micros in urban areas, it simply states that a container larger than a 35mm Film can must have the GC Code or equivalent Listing Site Code clearly marked on the exterior, and that all containers larger than a 35mm film can must have clear sides. That is from feedback from the ACPO, who are trying to facilitate Geocaching at the same time reducing the repeat of what happened in Wetherby.

 

Deci

Link to comment

This is a good move, and the GAGB have acted swiftly as entirely necessary. There is some real positivity that can come out of this, too - it's the perfect situation for bringing back Virtual Caches, especially suited as they are to urban locations. Bring back the virtual, get rid of the urban physical. Even 10g (a third of a film canister) of plastic explosive can kill. As such, all containers would be considered a thread by police. The cache size differential doesn't solve the issue - you still look suspicious.Arousing suspicion in our hobby is bad publicity, and every time there is an incident like this one, it puts our whole pastime in jeopardy. It would be of no surprise to me if some councils banned Geocaching based on a reaction to this - there's certainly plenty of arguments you can put against caching, and of course plenty that are positive too. However, by permitting micro caches in urban locations you present more problems. One of them being cache quality, of course, as the maxim to hide (generally) the biggest cache you can in any location goes out of the window. You are now going to be actively encouraged to hide urban micros and nanos, by default. The bigger problems than cache quality, however, are that the big issue is being missed - three-quarters of the problem with urban caching is the suspicion aroused by those undertaking the find! Acting in a "suspicious" manner generally gets people intrigued and that's when the police get called in. The reason people sometimes feel uncomfortable, suspicious and like they are being watched is because they ARE being watched because they DO look suspicious! Only hiding micro or smaller caches is not the solution because the suspicion is still there. 10 grams of plastic explosive takes up about a quarter of a 35mm film canister and could easily kill, and the police know this, so they won't think twice about viewing a microcache as a potential threat.

 

(video cut)

 

It's time to grasp the nettle and push for Virtual Caches which are the perfect solution to the Urban Caching problem. Hiding suspicous looking objects in supermarket car parks, town centres, near public transport buildings and around busy urban locations is the worst kind of negative PR possible. Not to mention the grot factor and risk of glass shards and needles! If we want our hobby to grow in a positive and forward-looking manner, this should apply to all caches whether new or old, and if it means some of mine have to go... so be it.

 

What is Urban? A cache in an area where one would be more likely to wear smart shoes than walking boots.

 

... which is all well and good but completely overlooks the far more obvious security threat. Somebody hides a film pot under a park bench and you'd think the world was about to end. Someone parks their car (with a boot big enough to accommodate enough explosive to blow everything within 100 yards to kingdom come, or a monstrous nail bomb, or other nefarious device) and nobody bats an eyelid.

 

Instead of grasping the nettle as you're describing, perhaps it's time we got a sense of perspective about it. There isn't a terrorist hiding behind every corner, every little bump in the night isn't part of a dastardly plot to blow us up when we're not looking, and we're still more likely to be run over by a bus than blown up by someone with a grudge against us.

 

I agree with the concerns raised by drsolly about what might be needed to identify the code listed on the side of an unknown object but at the same time can see that this is a useful step forward to make it much easier to differentiate the game pieces of a harmless hobby from a potentially more sinister object.

 

If there was some way of providing police forces with the description and GPS coordinates of every geocache, including physical stages of multis and puzzles, that would also make it easier for them to determine at a stroke whether they were dealing with a cache or something else.

Link to comment
If there was some way of providing police forces with the description and GPS coordinates of every geocache, including physical stages of multis and puzzles, that would also make it easier for them to determine at a stroke whether they were dealing with a cache or something else.

 

This is something the GAGB and the Reviewers aided by Groundspeak are working on. but it will take a period of time to fully implement. Until then we can only take advice given by the Police and implement that advice.

 

Deci

Link to comment

What do the Yanks do? Surely they are just as security conscious as us.

 

Anyway, in my opinion, this can only work if common sense is used. Let's face it, if permission was needed for EVERY SINGLE cache placement such as a post box, then the game would rapidly fold. I cetrainly wouldn't be bothered to place any caches out there.

Link to comment

to understand how the sport is played, by reading the rules and not appreciating the creativeness, uniqueness of containers that exist, how can the police give us guidelines to something that you know nothing about? If a police constable of wetherby aka police cacher 1 had 500 caches to his name, I would consider he had a true understanding of our hobby. It is like of a road planner that does not appreciate the traffic conditions of a given area and have a set of traffic lights installed which causes mayhem and outcry.

Link to comment

Thanks to the reviewers and GAGB for their swift response to what could have really damaged caching in the UK

Just a minor question... Geocaching.com smallest cache size is micro... Do all caches now have to be labelled? If these are part of the UK guidelines wouldn't something like "where physically possible" be less confusing

“Urban caches should be placed to minimise the chance of security alerts. It is essential that micros and larger are marked externally as a geocache with the relevant listing site reference (eg: GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx or OCxxxxxx). Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening. Cache pages must contain the following wording: This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines”
Edited by fuzzybears
Link to comment
If there was some way of providing police forces with the description and GPS coordinates of every geocache, including physical stages of multis and puzzles, that would also make it easier for them to determine at a stroke whether they were dealing with a cache or something else.

 

This is something the GAGB and the Reviewers aided by Groundspeak are working on. but it will take a period of time to fully implement. Until then we can only take advice given by the Police and implement that advice.

 

Deci

Sadly, there may come a day when the terrorists replace a cache with a bomb... The police having the co-ordinates listed as safe may then be dangerous.

 

It's drop in the ocean stuff... And another GAGB RULE (they're not guidelines if they're not optional) won't help when 5 of the last 6 caches that I've found don't follow the existing GAGB rules:

Link to comment

What do the Yanks do? Surely they are just as security conscious as us.

 

Anyway, in my opinion, this can only work if common sense is used. Let's face it, if permission was needed for EVERY SINGLE cache placement such as a post box, then the game would rapidly fold. I cetrainly wouldn't be bothered to place any caches out there.

 

All caches DO need permission.. you tick the box to say you have it.... If you tried to get permission for a cache on a post box I don't think you would get it.. Twice recently we have been questioned by a land owner as to what we were doing on their land when we explained, they knew nothing about the caches... We removed them and emailed the owner to let them know and they archived them

 

We need to know when we go caching that we have 'permission' to do so. Just because the cache is on a public footpath or at the side of the road does not give us the right to place a cache OR search for it. The land is still owned by someone we only have the right to use a right of way not to place a cache just off it.

 

Caching is becoming too mainstream to continue as we did a few years ago. We will get more and more problems like this and more and more cachers will be having a serious run in with the law and caching will only suffer in the long term.

 

If you place a cache anywhere you are inviting the rest of us to visit it please make sure we are safe in all ways to do so

Link to comment

One more quick question....

 

Does this apply to all urban caches - including those hidden on private property with the full permission and cooperation of the landowner? Somebody's front garden, for instance?

 

Might it not have made more sense to insist on permission for all urban caches.....and include the Police in that permission process? They're probably going to be the best people to know if a hide's likely to be mistaken for a bomb and dealt with accordingly, after all....

 

Just as an afterthought - if the Police were given accesss to the database - an accurate description of the container and it's precise whereabouts as a note to the reviewer might be a good move, too. :)

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

One more quick question....

 

Does this apply to all urban caches - including those hidden on private property with the full permission and cooperation of the landowner? Somebody's front garden, for instance?

 

 

That is a very good point. We call my little area a village - but it is certainly an urban area by definition above. Many houses, pubs, shops, a main postal area sorting office and a gas holder - it even used to have its own large telephone exchange a few years ago!. A busy railway (2 traibns an hour to and from London) runs through it some 100 yds from my home.

 

I have had a cache in my front garden for 8 or 9 years now. It is impossible to retrieve it without looking a bit "dodgy".

 

One of the earliest logs was from "Tim & June" reviewers from many years ago. It was visited by a reviewer in the last fortnight (hurry up and log it Dave!).

 

I have no intention of changing it in any way.

Link to comment

I still don't get how cache size comes into it when a 35mm film canister could carry a lethal explosive load, and the hunt is what causes the suspicion. At the bare minimum, all urbans should now require proof of permission. Differentiating between cache containers does not solve the problem one jot.

 

Take Reading city centre for example:

 

screenshot031zm.jpg

 

Most of those caches will have someone rooting around furtively and suspiciously this weekend. No, the problem is not going away.

Link to comment

"Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening".

 

Can we have some further clarification on "larger than"? Is this by volume or linear dimensions? This is important for caches invoking magnetic key safes, which may or may not be considered larger than a 35mm container depending on the interpretation of the new rule. If they are considered larger then this will be a problem as they are not transparent. Have I just identified a new market for the cache suppliers!

Link to comment

I still don't get how cache size comes into it when a 35mm film canister could carry a lethal explosive load, and the hunt is what causes the suspicion. At the bare minimum, all urbans should now require proof of permission. Differentiating between cache containers does not solve the problem one jot.

 

Take Reading city centre for example:

 

screenshot031zm.jpg

 

Most of those caches will have someone rooting around furtively and suspiciously this weekend. No, the problem is not going away.

 

Only two smileys! You need to get out more!

Link to comment

I still don't get how cache size comes into it when a 35mm film canister could carry a lethal explosive load, and the hunt is what causes the suspicion. At the bare minimum, all urbans should now require proof of permission. Differentiating between cache containers does not solve the problem one jot.

 

Take Reading city centre for example:

 

screenshot031zm.jpg

 

Most of those caches will have someone rooting around furtively and suspiciously this weekend. No, the problem is not going away.

 

Only two smileys! You need to get out more!

 

Sorry - I do you a miss service - 3 ,I missed one!

Link to comment

The requirement as has been stated several times, was put in place due to advice given by the ACPO.

 

The GAGB working with the Reviewers and aided by Groundspeak, are actively working to build a close liaison with all individual Police Forces

 

The person who was involved in the Incident and received a Caution. Is now facing major repercussions within his employment, he is also facing possible further sanctions. So any measure which goes to prevent such a thing happening in the future, should be welcome. No sorry I will not comment further on the nature of the persons employment, due to confidentiality and possibly creating further issues for him. I am aware that at least one Police Force is monitoring this and other Forums, so if this persons employer does the same, I have no wish to see more issues created for him, nor his colleagues who might happen to be Geocachers.

 

A full definition of Urban has yet to be evolved. But personally for me, caches located in a location similar to my former colleagues is, I believe would not trigger a Major Security Alert. There is more of a chance of Police being called out, treating it as someone attempting to hide illicit goods such as drugs or stolen goods. That comes from having several interactions with the Police as a Reviewer, and one incident involving the finding of a object hidden by someone in my Garden. Which later turned out to have been used in the commission of a crime. Now move 2 minutes from my former colleagues cache location, and yes I would say that you are now in a location defined as Urban under the Guideline.

 

As to cache sizes, there is already this in place

 

3: All containers to be clearly marked as Geocaches.

 

Note that states all sizes, and has been in implementation since 2007, care to guess where? Answer the Metropolitan Police Agreement, which also requires CO's to provide photographs of the container. And also the following text

"This cache is located within an area frequently patrolled by Police. Please avoid acting suspiciously whilst searching for it, and if challenged, explain about geocaching"

 

So being required to use clear sided containers with the Listing Site Identifier Code on the container (one Listing Site specifically uses the GAGB Guidelines as native ones. Given the Review process they use, it will be interesting to see how they enforce the requirement). and paste

 

This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines

 

means that less work is involved for both the CO and Reviewer than the Met Agreement.

 

The Ripples from the Wetherby Incident unlike in the US where such incidents only ripple locally, is rippling throughout the whole of the UK. It's even reached down to the South West, and had a impact there.

 

Geocaching is no longer a underground hobby, neither is it peeking at the edges of the mainstream now in the UK (the incident has even been reported in a US News web site), Geocaching is now Front and Centre in the UK. Genuine cache log, made since the incident took place

 

Deci

Link to comment
If there was some way of providing police forces with the description and GPS coordinates of every geocache, including physical stages of multis and puzzles, that would also make it easier for them to determine at a stroke whether they were dealing with a cache or something else.

 

This is something the GAGB and the Reviewers aided by Groundspeak are working on. but it will take a period of time to fully implement. Until then we can only take advice given by the Police and implement that advice.

 

Deci

Sadly, there may come a day when the terrorists replace a cache with a bomb... The police having the co-ordinates listed as safe may then be dangerous.

 

It's drop in the ocean stuff... And another GAGB RULE (they're not guidelines if they're not optional) won't help when 5 of the last 6 caches that I've found don't follow the existing GAGB rules:

 

"Sadly, there may come a day when the terrorists replace a cache with a bomb... The police having the co-ordinates listed as safe may then be dangerous."

 

Why replace a cache to achieve this false sense of security. There is enough information in this thread for you to be able to successfully list a bomb ! What it should look like, where it can be, who'll know where it is ... Wait for the first profile to appear that is 0 finds 1 hide

Link to comment

Urban to us means nothing about population density ,

but does mean any cache location overlooked by nearby a building(s) with a window(s) where a person(people) could be inside looking out .

Hmmm.... Several buildings around, in the middle of nowhere... With windows... In what until now I'd definitely class as rural as the one building in sight is often surrounded by grazing sheep.

 

Urban, no matter how you define it is a grey area. Manchester town hall is urban, kinder summit is rural... But there's lots of debatable areas in the middle.

 

Any guideline/rule has to be precise to be useful, so an ambiguous word does not belong in it. This debate has proven "urban" isn't well defined... And is probably wrong because as the landowner, triple D can put what he likes in his front garden, so long as it's legal to own and not a restricted item like a shotgun.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment
If there was some way of providing police forces with the description and GPS coordinates of every geocache, including physical stages of multis and puzzles, that would also make it easier for them to determine at a stroke whether they were dealing with a cache or something else.

 

This is something the GAGB and the Reviewers aided by Groundspeak are working on. but it will take a period of time to fully implement. Until then we can only take advice given by the Police and implement that advice.

 

Deci

Sadly, there may come a day when the terrorists replace a cache with a bomb... The police having the co-ordinates listed as safe may then be dangerous.

 

It's drop in the ocean stuff... And another GAGB RULE (they're not guidelines if they're not optional) won't help when 5 of the last 6 caches that I've found don't follow the existing GAGB rules:

 

"Sadly, there may come a day when the terrorists replace a cache with a bomb... The police having the co-ordinates listed as safe may then be dangerous."

 

Why replace a cache to achieve this false sense of security. There is enough information in this thread for you to be able to successfully list a bomb ! What it should look like, where it can be, who'll know where it is ... Wait for the first profile to appear that is 0 finds 1 hide

There are hundreds of profiles that read like that already. And the reason for the swap would be the target... A FTFer could cause a device to miss it's intended target, if still fatal.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

Yes, yet another knee-jerk reaction :huh:.

Although I fully understand the need for a reaction to this incident, it needs to be fully considered and fully workable without the lots of grey bits we seem to have here.

As for labeling the container, is there really any point in this (in the context of identifying it as a bomb or not)? Even ignoring the good points above regarding the label, after a week/month/year open to the elements the majority of labels are going to become illegible, that is unless a specification is given for a weather proof label.

Link to comment

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter) <_<

 

...and it seems that all new urban caches will now require a plug for the GAGB

This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines

 

A very weak token gesture IMHO.

Link to comment

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter) <_<

 

...and it seems that all new urban caches will now require a plug for the GAGB

This cache meets the GAGB Urban Placement Guidelines

 

A very weak token gesture IMHO.

I agree 100%. "this cache meets the Urban Placement RULE drawn up by the elected representatives of the minority of cachers in the UK" would read much better I think

Link to comment

Tim, The definition of Urban from wiki: An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets. We're trying to address locations where there are lots of muggles so higher chance of bomb scares

 

Getting the placer to include the guideline on the cache ensures that they are aware of it and gets the message out to other cachers.

 

Dave

 

By that definition any park or woodland within a towns limits is urban. So no more camo bags, ammo cans, nicely sprayed and camoed boxes - unless they're well out in the countryside?

 

It won't affect any of my hides - or my finds to any great extent - but it's going to do nothing to advance the game for anybody already playing .... and all for the sake of one poorly considered hide :(

I'd add to that two villages around these parts that have a LOT of muggles... Castleton and Edale. Both have far more muggles than Glossop does as there's nothing to do here! I'm sure that one could come up with hundreds of villages that are busier than towns.

 

Citing Wiki for a definition just made me laugh harder than I have for a long time though :D

Link to comment

My personal position is to hide no more urban caches and start allowing my old ones to vanish over time. I recently archived one in London following 'the incident', in fact.

 

Just what an urban cache is and if a see-through box will help a plush toy TB not look like it's stuffed full of C4, I'll leave to other people to discuss. What this means for next year's Geolympix in central Oxford will need to be talked about though- we'll have to either move urban ideas out into the countryside or adopt the new UCC; Urban Caching Conventions.

Link to comment

 

(snip)

.... and all for the sake of one poorly considered hide :(

 

To be fair to the cache hider, the Wetherby cache was no more a 'poorly considered' hide than many 'urban' caches I've done up and down the country

 

The Wetherby cache description did stress the likelihood of cachers being overlooked, stressed the importance of being surreptitious, and the Hint described a ruse to cover your attempt to get to the cache.

 

I'm not saying that this excuses the cache owner or that the Wetherby cache wasn't a 'poorly considered' hide... I'm just saying that this cache placement was far from out of the ordinary and should not be thought of as being an isolated example of a badly placed cache.

Link to comment

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter)

 

There was no consultation from the GAGB because the majority of the GAGB knew nothing about it.

I believe what Dave (Deceangi) actually means in his post is consultation between The Reviewers and the GAGB Committee - not the GAGB itself.

Link to comment

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter)

 

There was no consultation from the GAGB because the majority of the GAGB knew nothing about it.

I believe what Dave (Deceangi) actually means in his post is consultation between The Reviewers and the GAGB Committee - not the GAGB itself.

Which in the event would be all that was needed, as the committee have the mandate of those cachers who are members.

 

They don't have that mandate from the cachers in general.

Link to comment

Containers larger than 35mm containers should have clear sides to enable inspection without opening.

 

That's a good idea, but try this:

 

Take a clear tupperware box, and put the usual assortment of stuff in it. Close the box, and look at the side. You won't really be able to see what's in it, because the tupperware isn't transparent, it's translucent. So if you want to check that it isn't a bomb, you'll still need to open it.

 

Maybe we need to find a source of truly transparent boxes.

 

But I'm not sure that would work either. Consider, for example, a box covered with a couple of bricks. You'd have to move the bricks before you could look at what's in the box, and then you'd be looking down at the top, which probably has a big "HARMLESS" label on it obstructing your view. So you'd have to move the box in order to inspect it, and although I'm not an expert at bombs, I'd be reluctant to move a possible bomb.

 

So I'm not sure that this idea solves the problem.

 

So, let's define the problem. The problem is, someone looks at a box where there's no reason for a box to be, and sees someone "acting suspiciously" around it, and calls the police. The police need a way to safely verify that it isn't a bomb, at very low cost, and very quickly.

 

I can't actually see any way to do this, other than by size. If it's too small to be a bomb, then you don't have to look inside it. Maybe what's needed, is for all urban caches to be less than a certain size, that size to be determined by advice from a bomb expert.

 

one answer to the above as GAGB have been in consultation with ACPO to reach all police forces - it might be worth suggesting identifying police officers within each force (I am sure every Force has officers who are cachers - I know Kent have quite a few) to act as SPOCs (single points of contact) so if there is an incident and there may be a possibility that the package is a cache then these SPOCs can be contacted and hopefully they can quickly identify said location as a cache location

Also - I appreciate that action has had to be taken due to the recent incident - however hasn't context also to be considered - i.e. of the hundreds of thousands of 'finds' by tens of thousands of cachers in the UK over the last 10 years, how many times has this happened ??

Edited by Deepdiggingmole
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

 

Good points Nobby .We have been looking at Groundspeaks guidelines and many of the GAGB guidelines for this covered by Groundspeaks own guidelines so there shouldn't be any quibbles . And we have noticed since we last read them that "adequate permission " now reads " You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

 

Groundspeak Guidelines

1.Fundamental Placement Guidelines

 

1.All local laws apply.

2.You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

3.Geocaches are never buried.

4.Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

5.Geocaches are not placed on school property or military bases.

6.Geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles or 161 meters apart.

7.Geocaches are allowed in space, other planets and spacecraft.

 

2.Other Placement Considerations

 

1.Select an appropriate location and container.

2.Label your geocache.

3.Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

 

1.Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.

2.A geocache may be disabled or archived.

3.Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement.

4.Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

Link to comment

one answer to the above as GAGB have been in consultation with ACPO to reach all police forces - it might be worth suggesting identifying police officers within each force (I am sure every Force has officers who are cachers - I know Kent have quite a few) to act as SPOCs (single points of contact) so if there is an incident and there may be a possibility that the package is a cache then these SPOCs can be contacted and hopefully they can quickly identify said location as a cache location

Also - I appreciate that action has had to be taken due to the recent incident - however hasn't context also to be considered - i.e. of the hundreds of thousands of 'finds' by tens of thousands of cachers in the UK over the last 10 years, how many times has this happened ??

 

Tim, that's exactly what I've asked ACPO for. We hope that we can work with a SPOC in each police Force to help them respond to questions about caching within their Force and provide them with support whenever necessary.

Link to comment

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter)

 

There was no consultation from the GAGB because the majority of the GAGB knew nothing about it.

I believe what Dave (Deceangi) actually means in his post is consultation between The Reviewers and the GAGB Committee - not the GAGB itself.

Which in the event would be all that was needed, as the committee have the mandate of those cachers who are members.

 

They don't have that mandate from the cachers in general.

Link to comment

As you can see I do not post to the forum that often :blink:

 

This incident was always going to have far reaching implications on our game, and undoubtedly through this forum many will express their own points of view....albeit I suspect that we forum visitors are still a minority of geocacher's who play the game.

 

This is in no way a dig at GAGB or any Reviewer, but I am slightly confused as to the following:

The new GAGB requirement for an urban cache container and additional wording. At at present I pay a subscription to Groundspeak and therefore abide to the best of my ability to their guidelines. I am NOT a member of GAGB and therefore slightly confused as to why I must now conform to a ruling of this association, one that many cacher's outside this forum have ever heard of, to get a cache published? Are GAGB the rule (guideline) makers for or on behalf of Groundspeak here in the UK?..or is it that the reviewing team are?..or is it that the reviewers, on behalf of Groundspeak make these rule (guideline) changes and use GAGB to publicise them?

Link to comment

GAGB is the only elected national UK caching Association and has always created guidelines since caching in the UK has differences to caching in other countries. GAGB is listing site agnostic and recommends its guidelines for all listing sites. Some listing sites adopt these guidelines. No GAGB committee members are Groundspeak Reviewers.

 

The GAGB committee does constantly consult with Groundspeak Reviewers to pool our collective knowledge, for example to consider the pratical implications of guidelines. In this particular case, the GAGB committee proposed a new guideline which was then developed in dialogue with Groundspeak Reviewers. We're considering whether further change is necessary following feedback from the community and any other feedback from the Police.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Edited by The Wombles
Link to comment

I'd like to add clarification of the need for cache reference numbers eg GCxxxxx which arose from my initial discussion with ACPO. When a Police Officer is faced with a suspect package then a query reliant on mapping would take time to identify clearly and won't take account of the physical stages of multis and puzzles. A cache marked with a reference number can be quickly and uniquely identified.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...