Jump to content

GAGB Urban Geocaching Guideline


Recommended Posts

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

 

Many thanks for the reply Dave

Link to comment

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?

 

When a cache is submitted, the placer ticks a box to say they have read the Guidelines.

Which include:

When I submit a new cache for publication, how long will it take to be listed?

Each cache that is submitted to Geocaching.com is reviewed by a volunteer to ensure that the cache meets the Geocaching Listing Guidelines.

 

Fundamental Placement Guidelines

1. All local laws apply.

(1. All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" or similar signs.)

 

Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

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

 

Groundspeak should really have a page of links to the relevant sites where the local laws and requirements are listed...

 

Or a link to the local reviewers...

 

I have noticed that a lot of the US reviewers have a list of requirements -Do's and Don'ts- for the National Parks in their review areas listed in their profiles.

Link to comment

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?

 

When a cache is submitted, the placer ticks a box to say they have read the Guidelines.

Which include:

When I submit a new cache for publication, how long will it take to be listed?

Each cache that is submitted to Geocaching.com is reviewed by a volunteer to ensure that the cache meets the Geocaching Listing Guidelines.

 

Fundamental Placement Guidelines

1. All local laws apply.

(1. All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" or similar signs.)

 

Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

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

 

Groundspeak should really have a page of links to the relevant sites where the local laws and requirements are listed...

 

Or a link to the local reviewers...

 

I have noticed that a lot of the US reviewers have a list of requirements -Do's and Don'ts- for the National Parks in their review areas listed in their profiles.

 

Sorry, B&R, I did point out that this is not intended as a dig at GAGB or reviewers and I don't think I questioned Groundspeak guidelines? As a cacher with a fair number of published geocaches I am fully aware of point #3 in your post. My query was a genuine one as to the status of GAGB being the body to make guidelines as to cache publication in the UK, which I thought was relevant as now we seem to be required to add the wording as per GAGB guidelines.I was just asking for clarification not an argument matey.

Link to comment

Why are we quoting GAGB guidelines surely these will be Groundspeak guidelines for Urban caches in the UK..... So placed according to urban guidelines would do the job.

 

Placing a GC number on a cache will only help if the container is returned in such a way as you are to able to see said GC code.......

Link to comment

Not sure if I've missed something here, how do you put the GC number etc. on a magnetic nano? if you can't does that mean no more nanos / out of the box hides (bolts, magnetic signs etc.) in urban areas? <_<

 

The new guidelines are only for caches bigger than micros. Or rather anything bigger than a micro needs to have the GC code and be clear. As I understand it.

Link to comment

Not sure if I've missed something here, how do you put the GC number etc. on a magnetic nano? if you can't does that mean no more nanos / out of the box hides (bolts, magnetic signs etc.) in urban areas? <_<

 

“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”

 

Hope this helps

Link to comment

Sorry, B&R, I did point out that this is not intended as a dig at GAGB or reviewers and I don't think I questioned Groundspeak guidelines? As a cacher with a fair number of published geocaches I am fully aware of point #3 in your post. My query was a genuine one as to the status of GAGB being the body to make guidelines as to cache publication in the UK, which I thought was relevant as now we seem to be required to add the wording as per GAGB guidelines.I was just asking for clarification not an argument matey.

MeerRescue, you were quoted, as it applies generally, not to have a go at you...

 

There are local Guidelines, eg No caches in Dry Stone Walls applies in the UK, it's not a Groundspeak guideline, and US cachers can put caches in Dry Stone Walls to their hearts content.

 

IF Groundspeak say "Local laws apply..." and "Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region..." then they should be EASILY available.

Link to comment

Yeah... Geocaching is hugely different here and in other countries :D

 

The GAGB was a good idea... Once upon a time... But if they don't represent the cachers, they don't have a mandate to position themselves above us.

 

The New Forest landowner agreement was very well done... Whoever did that one deserves a pat on the back. As for the rest, it's not benefited me really... And dare I say it, most caches are still placed without a thought for permission or "guidelines"

 

Trying not to sound like I'm having a go, I just don't see GAGB guidelines helping one little bit... As I've been finding caches for the whole existence of the association, nothing has changed apart from the nano explosion.

 

I'll never place a cache to advertise anything "commercial" including the GAGB. If charities are out, I'm not going to help feed others egos. If it comes to it eventually I will resort back to letterboxing, as there's less politics.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment
IF Groundspeak say "Local laws apply..." and "Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region..." then they should be EASILY available.

 

That is a project that is currently being worked on by Groundspeak, they are not quite ready to roll it out yet as there is still work needed to finish it.

 

Deci

Link to comment

Sorry, B&R, I did point out that this is not intended as a dig at GAGB or reviewers and I don't think I questioned Groundspeak guidelines? As a cacher with a fair number of published geocaches I am fully aware of point #3 in your post. My query was a genuine one as to the status of GAGB being the body to make guidelines as to cache publication in the UK, which I thought was relevant as now we seem to be required to add the wording as per GAGB guidelines.I was just asking for clarification not an argument matey.

MeerRescue, you were quoted, as it applies generally, not to have a go at you...

 

There are local Guidelines, eg No caches in Dry Stone Walls applies in the UK, it's not a Groundspeak guideline, and US cachers can put caches in Dry Stone Walls to their hearts content.

 

IF Groundspeak say "Local laws apply..." and "Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region..." then they should be EASILY available.

...yep, got you that time :P

Link to comment

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.

I had a snowball fight in August in Havant once... But I guess it wasn't Basingstoke!

 

I'm a very independent cacher, as the GAGB found out years ago. I wish them no harm, I just want to not be a member, and I want them to stay away from me too. I do have loyalties to my fellow cachers... But I don't want anybody dictating to me about my hobby. I've played it differently to most of you, and I can do it again quite happily.

 

I don't place urban caches, I try not to find them, but sometimes I can't resist a quick find. I do love the game where you find hidden boxes in the country though... Not Groundspeak, Navicache, opencaching (both of them) or the GAGB invented it... It ran for 200 years+ without problem... Now we need associations and extra rules? No, we each need to think before we place one... simple.

Link to comment

So thats it then. Virtuals are the way forward in urban areas during these turbulant times. I certainly would nt entertain anyone getting a criminal record searching for my tupperware box. Would you?

There is no crime of finding anything.

 

There is no crime of hiding anything.

 

There is the offence of littering, but once hidden, that's a mute point... And on finding, you can prove it's not yours, and also, rather handily... Exactly where it was hidden.

 

To be subject to an official caution... You have to be compliant... And as you've committed no crime, you also have to be ill informed at best... Or just plain dumb.

 

Would love to know what the caution was actually for.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

So thats it then. Virtuals are the way forward in urban areas during these turbulant times. I certainly would nt entertain anyone getting a criminal record searching for my tupperware box. Would you?

 

To be subject to an official caution... You have to be compliant... And as you've committed no crime, you also have to be ill formed at best... Or just plain dumb.

 

Would love to know what the caution was actually for.

 

Phew, that's me safe then. Although I do have a dodgy knee.

 

It did occur strange to me that someone looking for a geocache should get a caution. What crime was committed? If it were me, I would have immediately contacted LIBERTY, the press and anyone else that has an interest in Police malpractice. (I would have contacted the News of the World too but........) :blink:

Link to comment

So thats it then. Virtuals are the way forward in urban areas during these turbulant times. I certainly would nt entertain anyone getting a criminal record searching for my tupperware box. Would you?

 

Absolutely. We don't need more rules but seeing as one has been thrust upon us it may as well be consistent. If urban caching is a threat then it should apply to all cache sizes - or none. The hunt is the problem. And Virtuals are the perfect answer to it. :)

Link to comment

Posting as an individual not with my GAGB hat on, this needs more work!

 

Again personal opinion, GAGB guidelines should be just that not rules. TBH the Groundspeak guidelines already cover the situation and other listing sites just do what they want to do anyway.

Edited by mongoose39uk
Link to comment

Posting as an individual not with my GAGB hat on, this needs more work!

 

Again personal opinion, GAGB guidelines should be just that not rules. TBH the Groundspeak guidelines already cover the situation and other listing sites just do what they want to do anyway.

I think so. GS guidelines all I care about... More than the average local hider I guess!

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of this new rule. It seems like it could do with a bit more thought put into it. It has huge implications and I'm not convinced it's been thought through all the way.

I appreciate that it ticks boxes for the ACPO in the short term, but I'm pretty sure that in the long term it will have hugely negative impacts on the quality of caching in 'Urban' areas.

I'm not interested in the politics of caching and any/all of its organisations- what interests me are those craftily hidden boxes, expertly camouflaged, or even those micros that bring me to cool and interesting places in city centres. There's several caches here in Edinburgh that wouldn't pass the new rule, and they're some of the best I've done.

Where will you find a transparent 5 gallon drum to place within a mile of the city centre? Simple - you won't, and a great cache will be lost.

I fear in the end our cities will become nothing more than barren waste lands of nothing but poorly placed nanos. Gone will be the ammo cans hidden a few hundred yards from our busiest shopping streets, and the cleverly cammo'ed clip-locks from under our benches, and with each one that is lost, geocaching becomes a lesser game.

I truly hope that this rule is given a lot more consideration. At the end of the day, there's thousands and thousands of caches found in the UK every day and episodes like the 'box under the planter' affair in Wetherby are extremely rare.

We (cachers in general) are far more of a worry for police than the little boxes we seek as we frequently travel around city centres with rucksacks on our backs - the source of the worst terrorist attacks on the UK for many years.

I urge the rule makers to sit down and have another good think about this. As you can tell by the length of my post I feel quite strongly about this!

That's all I got....

Link to comment

OK, so the new guideline may be a little wooly, but it's something. It's obviously not going to be the only thing that's done, but it's a good start and shows that the ACPO are open to discussions and interested in working something out. They haven't turned around and said "No, Geocaching should be banned in urban areas" so I shall be ensuring that all my current and future urban hides comply with the guideline.

 

The thing that worries me is that the "finder" rather than the "hider" was the one who got the caution. So say I go caching in an urban area and find a cache that meets the new GAGB urban guideline and I get reported as being suspicious. I get into the same position as the "finder" who got caught up in the bomb scare cache and explain to the officer what I'm doing. He/She then sees the clearly marked cache and I'm on my way. What if the cache was covered just the same as that in Wetherby and you can't see inside it because the hider has ignored the GAGB urban guidelines? Does that mean that I, the finder, am back to square one because I remove (for example) a brick that's hiding the tub to unveal a cache that looks like a possible bomb and I get reported as being suspicous and the officer comes along to see a black box. Say the cache has been sat there for a few years without a problem and the owner doesn't cache anymore so hasn't seen this new guideline and hasn't been out to replace/fix the container. The new guideline alone is obviously not going to fix the problem.

 

I like urban hides and I don't want to see areas flooded with virtuals instead (that's what Waymarking is for!). I think that no matter how well we educate the police force on caching there will always be a few officers who don't know what it's about and the chance of getting questioned by one. We've been questioned before and we were honest and described it as best we could to the confused looking officer. He then drove up the road, turned his car around and 5 minutes later passed by us. He then asked us if we had found it, and was delighted to hear that we had! :laughing: I think I'm going to print off a few Geocaching leaflets and keep them in the rucksack for times that I get questioned by muggles or police officers. At least I have something to back up my story then! :anitongue:

Link to comment

I have tremendous respect for anyone who gets involved in 'suspicious packages'. Having someone suggest something might be a bomb, and then you have to go have a bit of a look, takes a certain amount of bravery. No doubt some police officer has to have a quick peek (at the vicinity even if not the box) before deciding to call the bomb guys out with their fancy equipment.

 

That said, a couple of other points spring to mind.

If someone wants to blow some town centre up - they will do. They don't need to skulk about hiding pretend geocaches, or anything. As others have shown, stick it in a rucksac and board the bus, or put it in the car and park in the car park. If you think how 'easy' it would be be to carry out an 'attack' it's perhaps surprising that there aren't more of them here. We do live in an open society so it would seem to be a simple matter, given the materials. Look at places like Irag where suspicion is at its highest and people are trying really hard to stop bombers, yet there are frequent attacks.

 

I think the Wetherby incident was probably an over reaction, but even if it wasn't, no huge harm was caused. The technical guys got to practise their skills, Wetherby is famous for 15 mins, some shops lost some income (bad) but as suggested go hold an apology event! As for the finder getting a criminal record and risking his employment, well, until all the facts are in it's just a scare story. Sorry, but it is. We don't know what happened or what the charge was. Until we do know more facts it's just a scary 'oh no I'll be arrested for caching' cry-wolf tale. If geocaching is in fact illegal let's be told, but it appears that it isn't, so what happened here then? Not enough info. Surely, if they arrest a guy at the scene who says I'm geocaching, here's my GPS or phone with the cache details, I'll go get it for you, then it's as safe as can be, and no need to call the bomb truck.

 

Whatever is done to the boxes, whatever size, shape, colour, label etc, none of it will make it entirely safe. It could be a well disguised bomb. But why bother? Leave a carrier bag of c4 and run, or just blow yourself up. Why go to the trouble of placing a pretend geocache? How often do 'suspect packages' turn out to be bombs? I don't know but I would think not often.

 

If the police knew how to log onto geocaching.com and the other sites to check out the caches in their area, they would at least have a reasonable expectation that the suspicious box was a cache. Beyond this, if they are still unsure, they would have to treat it as suspect and close roads etc. I think the main purpose of labeling is so that muggles can see what it is and thus not call the cops in the first place.

 

A final thought, as someone mentioned above, given the huge number of urban caches and cachers, it's amasing that this hasn't happened before. No doubt it will happen again, new guidelines or not. Maybe the occasional 'incident' is the price of living in a free society.

 

So, labeling boxes is good, thinking carefully about your hide is good, searching carefully, and being open and honest if challenged is good. I think the new rule needs some work though. It would have been good if a more considered approach was taken, with more discussion on forums, and with GAGB members and other geocachers. Once again rules are implemented with no consultation, and in this case a bit of a rush. Urban caching has been happening for years without hundreds of incidents, so taking a few months to consult, consider and think would have been good.

 

Anyway, I will upgrade my regular cache that's outside the town hall in the near future! Hidden with full permission to avoid exactly this sort of incident. Of course, whether they would remember having said 'yes' when phoned by the cops is another matter!

Link to comment

Please forgive my ignorance, I have only been caching a few weeks.

 

Is Groundspeak merely the publisher and GAGB the rule / law maker is the UK?

 

I also have an issue understanding if this is a rule / law or a guideline?

 

I have, over the last few weeks started to prepare my own caches, ranging from magnetic nanos, some micros and some lock n locks up to 2.5litres.

 

I had planned to hide the magnetic nanos in urban enviroments, the micros in urban/rural areas and the lock n locks in woodland areas.

The micro tubes and lock n locks are camo taped up with the words 'HARMLESS GEOCACHE' on the outside, the finders card and log book on the inside along with the swag. The magnetic nanos contain only the logs obviously.

 

I hadnt planned to place these caches all at once, I merely wanted to have them prepared in advance. I am still scouting locations and am probably only ready to place the first two or three in 'interesting locations'.

 

Are my caches now non compliant? and if so what must be done before Groundspeak will publish them?

Link to comment

Please forgive my ignorance, I have only been caching a few weeks.

 

Is Groundspeak merely the publisher and GAGB the rule / law maker is the UK?

 

I also have an issue understanding if this is a rule / law or a guideline

 

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.

Link to comment

Guidelines, if reviewers decide to make them rules that is up to them.

 

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Guidelines.............. well they are a work in progress. If you feel a guideline needs changing or a new one needs adding, just let us know. Open a thread and get a discussion going. You could even start a poll on the GAGB forum.

Edited by mongoose39uk
Link to comment

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Make that +1, although I'd looked at the forum a few times I hadn't bothered to sign-up. I have done so now. Love the magazine, that wasn't around last time I looked.

 

Looks like the GAGB forums also tell you whos birthday it is... So a very Happy Birthday to you!!! :grin::rolleyes:

Link to comment

Cheers for the birthday message 50 and already grumpy :)

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Make that +1, although I'd looked at the forum a few times I hadn't bothered to sign-up. I have done so now. Love the magazine, that wasn't around last time I looked.

 

Looks like the GAGB forums also tell you whos birthday it is... So a very Happy Birthday to you!!! :grin::rolleyes:

Link to comment

There seems to be quite a lot of angst over this, for what it's worth here's my view:-

 

The Police were certainly looking for some action following Wetherby (see the 'demand' from them for all caches near the A1 to be lifted in the immediate aftermath), and I think that by establishing lines of communication quickly and showing a willingness to co-operate then the situation has been diffused somewhat (pun intentional :ph34r:).

 

I don't think the new guidelines/rules/recommendations are too onerous, they would seem to me to be pretty much common sense and would almost certainly have prevented the controlled explosion in Wetherby, and I can't see that they will unduly affect the vast majority of urban caches.

 

Several people have been banging on about how the GAGB doesn't represent them, etc., but if the GAGB didn't approach the Police in this case who else was going to? The Police won't want to deal with 10,000 individual cachers, and I doubt whether Groundspeak would want to get involved directly, so IMHO it was right that the GAGB started negotiations.

 

So to summarise, I think it's a reasonable guideline and well done to the GAGB for stepping up to the plate!

Link to comment

Please forgive my ignorance, I have only been caching a few weeks.

 

Is Groundspeak merely the publisher and GAGB the rule / law maker is the UK?

 

I also have an issue understanding if this is a rule / law or a guideline

 

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.

 

Thanks, clears it up a little, ceratinly expands my knowledge.

Link to comment

snip ..... 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...... snip

 

Guidelines, if reviewers decide to make them rules that is up to them.

 

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Guidelines.............. well they are a work in progress. If you feel a guideline needs changing or a new one needs adding, just let us know. Open a thread and get a discussion going. You could even start a poll on the GAGB forum.

 

I think Icenians meant that only 50 votes were cast in the election of the committee. If so it is hardly representative of UK caching as a whole. Not to say that it shouldn't be, the game probably needs an overall body to represent it to the public and authorities, whoever they may be.

Edited by Shanghai Joe
Link to comment

snip ..... 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...... snip

 

Guidelines, if reviewers decide to make them rules that is up to them.

 

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Guidelines.............. well they are a work in progress. If you feel a guideline needs changing or a new one needs adding, just let us know. Open a thread and get a discussion going. You could even start a poll on the GAGB forum.

 

I think Icenians meant that only 50 votes were cast in the election of the committee. If so it is hardly representative of UK caching as a whole. Not to say that it shouldn't be, the game probably needs an overall body to represent it to the public and authorities, whoever they may be.

 

You may be right, he probably did. Even worse matey most years we don't even get enough people to hold a election ;)

Link to comment

Guidelines, if reviewers decide to make them rules that is up to them.

 

Threads: 3,106, Posts: 49,802, Users: 5,682, Active Users: 530

 

a tad more than 50.

 

Membership is free and gets you a free monthly on-line magazine The Seeker and discounts at several retailers.

 

Guidelines.............. well they are a work in progress. If you feel a guideline needs changing or a new one needs adding, just let us know. Open a thread and get a discussion going. You could even start a poll on the GAGB forum.

 

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.

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Edited by DrDick&Vick
Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

 

Cool I am off to massage my ego down the pub:-) If it does not matter to you why keep whittering ;)

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

 

Cool I am off to massage my ego down the pub:-) If it does not matter to you why keep whittering ;)

Pub's a good idea!

ersonally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel.

Once again with the newest issue, the tiny proportion of cachers, elected by another tiny proportion of cachers, can dictate to us all... or that's how it feels. So it DOES matter to me... and others.

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

 

Cool I am off to massage my ego down the pub:-) If it does not matter to you why keep whittering ;)

Pub's a good idea!

ersonally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel.

Once again with the newest issue, the tiny proportion of cachers, elected by another tiny proportion of cachers, can dictate to us all... or that's how it feels. So it DOES matter to me... and others.

 

As one of the two token Northerners (why where we come from matters I have no idea)I can appreciate we do need to present things in a different way and manage changes better. Though please note we didn't make the announcement on this board.

 

We are reviewing the guidelines and will be asking for community involvement. Though it will take a little time to expand on this, the real world need bills to be paid it kinda gets priority over massaging our egos.

Link to comment

As some of you will know I have never been a supporter of the GAGB and could never understand what they were there for... But this week they have almost converted me... The fall out from Wetherby could have been serious and VERY far reaching and, with the reviewers, they have reduced this situation down to a reasonable level. Between them they had to come to an agreement with the ACPO quickly or very quickly a lot of UK towns could have been lost to geocaching. Just look how quickly we lost the London parks to 'security concerns'

The solution is not perfect but it has given us time to work out a more long term answer

 

In this thread a few have said that "the GAGB don't represent me" but no matter what you think, they do. As the body recognised by Groundspeak their guidelines are used to review EVERY cache listed on GC.com in the UK. When you tick the box to say you have read the guidelines you are agreeing to local laws &guidelines and these are agreed between the reviewers and the GAGB

The only way this will change is for another body to PROVE they represent more GC.com members than the GAGB does. Until then the GAGB has the ball and if you are not happy with what the GAGB committee does either join and get yourself elected, help them by putting forward ideas that the ACPO will like or get enough backing to replace the GAGB

The police have very wide powers under the Terrorism Acts and if they wanted to hiding caches could very quickly be included in the things the act cover and geocaching in the UK could soon be made illegal!!!

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

 

Cool I am off to massage my ego down the pub:-) If it does not matter to you why keep whittering ;)

Pub's a good idea!

ersonally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel.

Once again with the newest issue, the tiny proportion of cachers, elected by another tiny proportion of cachers, can dictate to us all... or that's how it feels. So it DOES matter to me... and others.

 

As one of the two token Northerners (why where we come from matters I have no idea)I can appreciate we do need to present things in a different way and manage changes better. Though please note we didn't make the announcement on this board.

 

We are reviewing the guidelines and will be asking for community involvement. Though it will take a little time to expand on this, the real world need bills to be paid it kinda gets priority over massaging our egos.

Of course it matters... it's not the Geocaching Association of Southern England. If there really are differences between caching in the UK and caching in the US... often cited as a reason for needing the GAGB in the first place, surely there are differences between one of my former home areas of Hampshire and the current one Derbyshire?

 

The guidelines are pretty much irrelevant... I think it's 8 of the last 10 I've found now that don't comply... but I guess at least half of the placers have told their reviewer that they do. The HCC... sorry GAGB guidelines only affect those who read them, which isn't many. So a rewrite will have little effect.

Link to comment

This is a personal statement and not committee influenced.

 

If people are that concerned with what the GAGB committee are doing/saying then get involved.

Become a full member and then stand for election/nominate another for election/vote and then you can be involved in implementing what needs saying/doing.

It is easy to stand back and criticise but much harder to get involved.

Personally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel. They do not, and will not, represent me. From the figures in this thread... The GAGB seems to represent 530 active members... If they're all full members... Which is a tiny percentage of cachers. Only 50 of those members voted... So the committee that claims to represent me, doesn't even represent it's own members really. Not blaming the current committee, but up here in the villages north of Luton, we saw the original committee (pre election #1 all those years ago) as a clique wishing to massage thier egos. After the election we had a token northerner on the committee (from the midlands) and still we didn't feel represented.

 

The active uk cachers to active GAGB members ratio would have made Screaming Lord Sutch quit! It's also pretty obvious from the lack of active members that the vast majority of UK cachers either don't want a GAGB, or really couldn't care less.

 

Cool I am off to massage my ego down the pub:-) If it does not matter to you why keep whittering ;)

Pub's a good idea!

ersonally, I have no problem with the GAGB apart from that the way things are made to feel.

Once again with the newest issue, the tiny proportion of cachers, elected by another tiny proportion of cachers, can dictate to us all... or that's how it feels. So it DOES matter to me... and others.

 

As one of the two token Northerners (why where we come from matters I have no idea)I can appreciate we do need to present things in a different way and manage changes better. Though please note we didn't make the announcement on this board.

 

We are reviewing the guidelines and will be asking for community involvement. Though it will take a little time to expand on this, the real world need bills to be paid it kinda gets priority over massaging our egos.

Of course it matters... it's not the Geocaching Association of Southern England. If there really are differences between caching in the UK and caching in the US... often cited as a reason for needing the GAGB in the first place, surely there are differences between one of my former home areas of Hampshire and the current one Derbyshire?

 

The guidelines are pretty much irrelevant... I think it's 8 of the last 10 I've found now that don't comply... but I guess at least half of the placers have told their reviewer that they do. The HCC... sorry GAGB guidelines only affect those who read them, which isn't many. So a rewrite will have little effect.

 

Soooooo, when we open it up for consultation encourage people to have input and then it may become more relevant. Fortunately the guideline isn't the only way we are trying to tackle it.

Link to comment

My concern here is that this issue has been considered by whom ever(not interested in GAGB issues), they have deemed this so serious that they have discussed this amongst themselves, post one police incident, and consulted with the volunteer reviewers an come up with a set of guidelines for all new urban caches... and grandfathered the existing....its that serious we hope the grandfathered ones will follow suit due to the security issues involved, here's hoping that we, as cachers, do not get any more bad press due to the lack of a total implementation of the new guidelines for all urban caches, or does it really matter at all if your box is already out there?

Link to comment

My concern here is that this issue has been considered by whom ever(not interested in GAGB issues), they have deemed this so serious that they have discussed this amongst themselves, post one police incident, and consulted with the volunteer reviewers an come up with a set of guidelines for all new urban caches... and grandfathered the existing....its that serious we hope the grandfathered ones will follow suit due to the security issues involved, here's hoping that we, as cachers, do not get any more bad press due to the lack of a total implementation of the new guidelines for all urban caches, or does it really matter at all if your box is already out there?

Good point... there are thousands of potential weatherby scenarios already in place... and grandfathered in by the guideline... doesn't make sense to me.

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...