Jump to content

GAGB Urban Geocaching Guideline


Recommended Posts

GAGB is an organisation dedicated to helping and supporting all UK geocachers - there is no political spin, no attempt at "draconian" rules forced on others. All GAGB is trying to do is to ensure that all UK Geocachers are aware of the current problems, which in the current high terrorist risk environment, will no doubt get worse. That the Police and security organisations need educating is also a given. I suspect that there are a great number of cachers out there who have not really read the GS guidlines, and with the current publicity being given to the re-appraised wording put forward by the GAGB at least a lot more will have a better idea by the time the dust settles on this. I am a bit dismayed at the amount of animosity towards an organisation, whose only aims are to help and support all UK Geocachers. No one I know in GAGB sets themselves up to "feel important" and I am concerned that a series of sensible suggestions are being sniped at for reasons I cannot fathom.

THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ORGANISATION

Paul B

 

This is true... the GAGB has no power or authority to impose it's 'draconian' rules [your words] on anyone but unfortunately, there are others who do have that power. Others who are nothing to do with the GAGB and who are supposedly representing a totally different organisation. They take it upon themselves to impose these 'non-negotiable guidelines' on all geocachers, whether they want them or not. Guidelines thought up after some serious knee-jerking, by one or two individuals that have no authority or mandate to do so.

The GAGB claim to be the 'body representing geocachers in the UK'.... They should stick to what they do best... 'representing'... and leave the 'rule making' to Groundspeak. And likewise... Groundspeak's reviewers should stay out of local geocaching politics stick to the job they were chosen and invited to do.... review and publish caches that comply with Groundspeak's rules. They have no mandate to do anything else either on behalf of Groundspeak or as a totally 'non-elected body', on behalf of any geocacher in the UK.

 

Edited for spelling... :)

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment

We say bring on the rules/guidelines.(Both words mean the same to us ,

just that one is a softer way of expressing it)

The way they wewre presented doesn't upset us.

 

We dream of the day ,L.O.L.,

that "street furniture" caches go the same way as Church Micro caches within church grounds and Side tracked caches on Railway land .

Also dream of the day that "stealth needed " on cache pages gets questioned as to the suitability of the cache location .

Dreams !

Link to comment

We say bring on the rules/guidelines.(Both words mean the same to us ,

just that one is a softer way of expressing it)

The way they wewre presented doesn't upset us.

 

We dream of the day ,L.O.L.,

that "street furniture" caches go the same way as Church Micro caches within church grounds and Side tracked caches on Railway land .

Also dream of the day that "stealth needed " on cache pages gets questioned as to the suitability of the cache location .

Dreams !

 

First they came for the micros, and I did not speak up because I hated micros....

 

signalsmile.gif

Link to comment

We say bring on the rules/guidelines.(Both words mean the same to us ,

just that one is a softer way of expressing it)

The way they wewre presented doesn't upset us.

 

We dream of the day ,L.O.L.,

that "street furniture" caches go the same way as Church Micro caches within church grounds and Side tracked caches on Railway land .

Also dream of the day that "stealth needed " on cache pages gets questioned as to the suitability of the cache location .

Dreams !

 

...each to their own I suppose :) and presumably if Groundspeak has a problem with caches being hidden when the requirement for "stealth needed" is given then they will remove their attribute for just that kind of warning :P

Link to comment

First, my apologies for only reading the first page and a bit of the second before replying. Second, I'm a member of the GAGB and generally support them -- but not on this:

 

Personally, I'm disgusted by the whole Wetherby fiasco and how, rather than support the person who I suspect has lost his job because he accepted a police caution even though he'd done nothing unlawful, those who represent us have kowtowed to what IMO is unreasonable action by the police. Provided the CO had permission from the owner of the planter to place a cache there AFAICT nobody, except the authorities, have done anything wrong. If the CO didn't have permission then it's the CO, not the finder, who's in the wrong. Nobody is at liberty to remove another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner (it's called theft) and so the finder would have been breaking the law had he not replaced the cache.

 

FWIW, cyclists have the 'Cyclists Defence Fund' (CDF), which exists partly to fund the legal costs of protecting the rights of cyclists. For example, a cyclist was found guilty of inconsiderate cycling by a district judge despite his having ridden completely in accordance with the law. Mainly funded by the CDF, the cyclist successfully appealed and this has set a precedent that should diminish the chances of a similar perverse prosecution. AIUI, photographers have a similar organisation in PHNAT. Our hobby is now a mainstream activity and I suspect the number of cachers in UK may well now be approaching, if not greater than, the number of 'serious' hobby photographers. Personally, I think it's time we stood up for our rights and perhaps it's time for a caching equivalent of CDF or PHNAT.

 

Perhaps rather than geocachers kowtowing to police knee-jerks, a vigorous defence of the victim (supported by the geocaching community) would have been more appropriate. I don't think that this is the last time that overzealous authorities are going to threaten our hobby because, no matter what the law actually says, they seem to prefer to make it up as they go along.

Link to comment

rather than support the person who I suspect has lost his job because he accepted a police caution even though he'd done nothing unlawful, those who represent us have kowtowed to what IMO is unreasonable action by the police.

 

Numerous people have speculated in this thread (and others elsewhere) that the cacher concerned was doing nothing which would warrant a caution and that therefore there must be more to this than we're being told. Interestingly while looking for some news reports on Wetherby I came across a forum for Police Special Constables, where they were discussing this and without exception everyone who commented on stated that on the face of it there would be no grounds for issuing a caution if the individual was simply caching, and therefore there must be more to it - they did speculate on some additional behaviour which could give the Police grounds for issuing a caution. Those who do know the whole story aren't saying because (quite rightly IMHO) they consider it to be confidential.

 

So until we do know what the caution was for you can't really say that we should be supporting the cacher to fight it as it might be wholly justified!

Link to comment

The GAGB has no powers to enforce any rules / guidelines, the placement of any Geocache in the UK is solely up to the landowner. The GAGB guidelines are what they are just guidelines with no real meaning, as I have just said, it's a landowner right and not some body with no statute powers.

 

Moote

Link to comment

The GAGB has no powers to enforce any rules / guidelines, the placement of any Geocache in the UK is solely up to the landowner. The GAGB guidelines are what they are just guidelines with no real meaning, as I have just said, it's a landowner right and not some body with no statute powers.

 

Moote

While the GAGB per se might not have any powers to enforce rules / guidelines, it seems to me that all reviewers implement them and so although you might be able to place a cache the chances are you won't get it published if it overtly breaks those rules / guidelines. Thus, pragmatically, the GAGB do have de-facto powers of enforcement.

Link to comment

The GAGB has no powers to enforce any rules / guidelines, the placement of any Geocache in the UK is solely up to the landowner. The GAGB guidelines are what they are just guidelines with no real meaning, as I have just said, it's a landowner right and not some body with no statute powers.

 

Moote

While the GAGB per se might not have any powers to enforce rules / guidelines, it seems to me that all reviewers implement them and so although you might be able to place a cache the chances are you won't get it published if it overtly breaks those rules / guidelines. Thus, pragmatically, the GAGB do have de-facto powers of enforcement.

 

Unfortunately not, all cache placement is the 100% right of the land owner, not the reviewers, the landowner is the only person who can make any demand on what is placed and where it can go. Groundspeak, OpenCaching etc. only publish the cache; if Caching is to flourish and survive then GC.com, OC.com etc have to work with landowner demands, not their perceived demands.

Link to comment
Unfortunately not, all cache placement is the 100% right of the land owner, not the reviewers, the landowner is the only person who can make any demand on what is placed and where it can go. Groundspeak, OpenCaching etc. only publish the cache; if Caching is to flourish and survive then GC.com, OC.com etc have to work with landowner demands, not their perceived demands.

That's not quite like how it is (at least, in theory). Of course the landowner's / land manager's wishes must be honoured. However, although a landowner can veto a cache, they can't demand one - for example, they can't get a cache published on GC.com if the area is already saturated.

 

For a cache to be published it has to be both placed and listed on at least one caching site. There are several people / organisations involved:

  • the CO,
  • the landowner,
  • the land manager,
  • the reviewer,
  • the cache listing service

Each of these effectively have the power of veto. That is, if any of the above say "no" then the cache doesn't get published.

 

WRT the GAGB: as I wrote previously, all reviewers seem to implement the GAGB guidelines. Thus caches that go against those guidelines are unlikely to get published. Similarly, if it is brought to the notice of a reviewer that a cache breaks the GAGB guidelines, the reviewer will likely archive that cache. IMO powers to deny publication and to archive are sufficient to be collectively called "power of enforcement". Hence, through the reviewers, the GAGB do have de-facto power of enforcement (by definition).

 

(Edit to correct grammatical error)

Edited by Pajaholic
Link to comment
Unfortunately not, all cache placement is the 100% right of the land owner, not the reviewers, the landowner is the only person who can make any demand on what is placed and where it can go. Groundspeak, OpenCaching etc. only publish the cache; if Caching is to flourish and survive then GC.com, OC.com etc have to work with landowner demands, not their perceived demands.

That's not quite like how it is (at least, in theory). Of course the landowner's / land manager's wishes must be honoured. However, although a landowner can veto a cache, they can't demand one - for example, they can't get a cache published on GC.com if the area is already saturated.

 

For a cache to be published it has to be both placed and listed on at least one caching site. There are several people / organisations involved:

  • the CO,
  • the landowner,
  • the land manager,
  • the reviewer,
  • the cache listing service

Each of these effectively have the power of veto. That is, if any of the above say "no" then the cache doesn't get published.

 

WRT the GAGB: as I wrote previously, all reviewers seem to implement the GAGB guidelines. Thus caches that go against those guidelines are unlikely to get published. Similarly, if it is brought to the notice of a reviewer that a cache breaks the GAGB guidelines, the reviewer will likely archive that cache. IMO powers to deny publication and to archive are sufficient to be collectively called "power of enforcement". Hence, through the reviewers, the GAGB do have de-facto power of enforcement (by definition).

 

(Edit to correct grammatical error)

 

I think you misunderstand my point. To place any cache in the UK (Including common ground) you must obtain the landowners permission, if the landowner requests that it must be a dark box with no label attached, then you must also comply with that request, if the GAGB and Groundspeak say that is not acceptable, then they are not honoring the landowner, therefore caching would stagnate. These rules / guidelines are one-sided, and therefore counter productive, and makes these organisations appear to be dictatorial.

Link to comment
I think you misunderstand my point. To place any cache in the UK (Including common ground) you must obtain the landowners permission, if the landowner requests that it must be a dark box with no label attached, then you must also comply with that request, if the GAGB and Groundspeak say that is not acceptable, then they are not honoring the landowner, therefore caching would stagnate. These rules / guidelines are one-sided, and therefore counter productive, and makes these organisations appear to be dictatorial.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand my point, which is simply that the rules in force for any cache are the most restrictive combination of the various sets of requirements imposed by the parties I mentioned a couple of posts ago. Additionally, if two sets of requirements are incompatible (e.g. the landowner requiring the box be camouflaged and the GAGB that it be transparent) then the cache cannot be published.

 

However, the GAGB guidelines are just that - guidelines. So I suspect that if the landowner requires the box to be wrapped in black tape with no label and you make this requirement known to the reviewer then that reviewer might exercise his or her discretion to waive the transparency requirement for that cache to permit it to be listed. That said, the reviewer might also elect to follow the guidelines (for example, if the cache was hidden somewhere with a high probability of being found by muggles).

Link to comment
I think you misunderstand my point. To place any cache in the UK (Including common ground) you must obtain the landowners permission, if the landowner requests that it must be a dark box with no label attached, then you must also comply with that request, if the GAGB and Groundspeak say that is not acceptable, then they are not honoring the landowner, therefore caching would stagnate. These rules / guidelines are one-sided, and therefore counter productive, and makes these organisations appear to be dictatorial.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand my point, which is simply that the rules in force for any cache are the most restrictive combination of the various sets of requirements imposed by the parties I mentioned a couple of posts ago. Additionally, if two sets of requirements are incompatible (e.g. the landowner requiring the box be camouflaged and the GAGB that it be transparent) then the cache cannot be published.

 

However, the GAGB guidelines are just that - guidelines. So I suspect that if the landowner requires the box to be wrapped in black tape with no label and you make this requirement known to the reviewer then that reviewer might exercise his or her discretion to waive the transparency requirement for that cache to permit it to be listed. That said, the reviewer might also elect to follow the guidelines (for example, if the cache was hidden somewhere with a high probability of being found by muggles).

The thing is the very people who are now setting these stringent "clear and labeled container" rules are probably the very people who have created the increase of physical caches in Urban environments, in the good old days of caching Virtual, Webcam, and Locationless caches were allowed, this gave the Urban area a realistic and workable alternative to the box on a high street.

 

You might argue that they created Waymarking, but in reality this has trivialized the Virtual cache types, to a point where Waymarking.com it is probably just an embarrassment to Groundspeak for starting the site. I say bring them back into the main site, and forget this petty argument, as there would be less need for the Urban cache, and would encourage users into Urban heritage education, many of the new Urban caches I have done have been less than pleasing, as Dog Poo bins and Dog pee height caches on the base of a post are usually far from good ideas, and have little "Oh! that was brilliant" factor, I'm afraid to say that a new tier of placement rules will just make this situation worse.

 

Also who says a bomb can't be in a plastic box, with clear sides, I'm sure that a metal container does not have to be involved in bomb construction, so the rule is just a farcical idea thought out in a panicked rush, In fact I often have the use of small explosive devices which are plastic encased, which are powerful enough to shatter a block of limestone, so I guess a would-be bomber could improvise a Tupperware equivalent, but far more deadly because of its increase in size. The problem with GC.com and its reviewers are they are ordinary people, who usually do not have the full knowledge at hand to make a well informed judgement.

 

Link to comment

I work in this field, and anything that remotely looks like a suspicious package will simply be banged off on site. This would even apply to a clear plastic box, even if you could see the contents, a 20g lump of PE4 could kill. You need to view it from the other side, I realise this organisation have put these rules in for a reason but they do seem a little pointless. Just dont put them where they would insight suspiscion, or just be more sneaky at placing them. This is even if it has a Geocache sticker on it, or a big sign that says harmless. Otherwise terrorists would just stick this to all IEDs.

 

If it cannot be instantly recognised, and the operator isnt 100% sure on it, as above quickest way is to bang it off. There are other methods of disposal however, such as using pigsticks or other disruptors. So when the BBC says it had to be blown up, this doesnt always mean a full-on Bond style blow up.

Edited by pauldoubleyou
Link to comment

Perhaps we should stop using tupperware boxes and use something less likely to be mistaken as a terrorist device:

 

Since i started caching i can almost always guarantee to find one or more of the following near the cache, however urban or remote:

 

> Stella Artois can

 

> Mcdonalds cup

 

> Vodka bottle

 

> Take away food container

 

> Sandwich wrapper

 

All seem to survive indefinitely in the open and cause no alarm whatsoever - the perfect cache containers!!

 

Just joking - thanks to all who are trying so hard to solve this. I really feel it's the communication element that is crucial - if the police can contact the cache owner simply and easily in the event of a scare the escalation can be stopped.

 

I also believe that acting "stealthily" when urban caching doesn't necessarily mean acting "suspiciously" - it needs a bit of planning and forethought when you're at the cache site. Better to walk away sometimes when the site is impossibly busy.

 

Steve

Link to comment

 

Since i started caching i can almost always guarantee to find one or more of the following near the cache, however urban or remote:

 

> Stella Artois can

...

All seem to survive indefinitely in the open and cause no alarm whatsoever - the perfect cache containers!!

 

 

Not always, I found this note in a cache that was disguised as a can of Fosters....

 

d81e28c8-ce3a-4e60-b8c1-2ae89bd5714a.jpg

 

but at least they didn't try to blow it up!

Edited by MartyBartfast
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...