Jump to content

GAGB Urban Geocaching Guideline


Recommended Posts

 

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

 

So are you advocating that we (geocachers in general) shouldn't have done anything? or do you have an alternative suggestion?

I'm advocating either we put it down to a one off, or we take down all caches that would come under the new guideline until they are up to the standard. We shake hands with the police and agree to comply and we HAVE to comply. We can't just ignore the guideline like the countless caches that ignore the plastic bag rule.

 

Rational logical thinking says that this was going to happen in the UK eventually as it did in the US years ago. The same thinking says it will happen again... if we don't abide by the new guideline, and one of those caches that don't comply is the next to be blown up, the game gets more than a black eye. If we'd put it down to the realistic thought that one day it would happen, and ignored it, we may have a black eye and a few caches removed... but at least eventually we wouldn't also alienate the police by not sticking to an agreement we have with them.

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.

 

Can I add then that GAGB put out a request to all cachers who are police officers to put themselves forward to act as SPOCs - this will mean that hopefully the designated SPOCs will at least have good knowledge of the subject matter and will not be someone who has been volunteered to do something he/she knows nothing about

 

[:)]

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.

 

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

 

I do not wish to be involved as I do not think we need such an organisation.

Link to comment

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

 

I do not wish to be involved as I do not think we need such an organisation.

But by putting a tick in the "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." box, you are agreeing to be bound by the GAGB's rules.

 

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

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

 

this is one of the main reasons that I will not list caches here anymore. I have no beef with an association representing it's members nor do I have a problem with them imposing their guidelines on their members. Nearly all associations do this. The problem I have is that what is now happening is exactly what we were categorically told would not happen back when GAGB was started. The promise was that GC reviewers would not hold people to the GAGB guidelines. So, now the gagb make the rules for the rest of us and we are told to swallow it.

 

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!!!

 

 

I'm sorry but the police have been accussed of over reacting to this but so is caching. One police seargent does not have the power to make caching illegal. I suspect that nobody has the power to stop anyone hiding a plastic box on their own land no matter how close it is to the A1 so using phrases such as caching could be made illegal is just nonsense. If this was the case then carrying rucksacks and parking cars would all be illegal as well.

 

All that adding additional rules to the game has achieved is a bit of free advertising for the GAGB. As I've said before, and have others, labelling does not stop this from happening, the cache that caused this was clearly labelled. Labels are only any good if you can see them so labels on boxes that by their very nature are hidden will not stop this happening again. Likewise the claim that permission would stop this is nonsense. Any passerby could report suspicious behaviour.

 

My point to all this is that any hurried and rushed in rule will not fix this, will not stop it happening again, and will not save caching. If rules must be implemented then they should be rules that actually make sense and have a reasonable chance of success.

 

As has been stated numerous times, the police in London cope with this and have done for a long time now. Useless and ineffective rules are not the way to go forward.

Link to comment

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

 

I do not wish to be involved as I do not think we need such an organisation.

But by putting a tick in the "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." box, you are agreeing to be bound by the GAGB's rules.

 

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

 

Show me a cache I have listed that agrees with those rules?

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?

 

Totally agree. There seems to be a 'bigging it up' theme here with lots of what if, maybe etc. Mrs miggins and pc plod (hello if you are listening) will have a tizzy if they so decide regardless of any guidelines that all look pretty unenforceable. People will see what they want to....wires here... Fertive people there. Intelligence foils terrorism and crime. Just to note I have geocached in Singapore. Pretty much 100% urban on any scale with no problems and it's a virtual police state... You can't even chew gum.

Link to comment

The other, similar, game doesnt have this issue. Nor do they have a, for want of a better word, governing body. Of course, they don't tend to go urban.

 

The problem isn't the public, it's both the hider and the seeker. If there's lots of muggles about I'd rather keep walking than get a smiley... And rural caching in the tourist bits of my local area often mean the cache is overrun with muggles, so it waits for another day.

 

Irresponsible hides, especially those in urban areas, which make a big thing in the description of having a high difficulty because of the stealth required, ARE going to arouse suspicion. Virtual waypoints of multis can take you to and from a point of interest in many towns, with the cache in a better area as far as suspicion and bomb scares are concerned.

 

Sadly, our governing body never became representative, and the game is too big to follow in the footsteps of the other game and rely on responsible players.

Link to comment
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

As far as I am aware, Groundspeak does not formally "recognise" any geocaching associations. For example, you won't find "endorsed by Groundspeak" on any association's Web page, in the UK or any other country. Of course, that's not to say the Groundspeak and the UK reviewers don't take the GAGB's input very seriously, but there is AFAIK no official "recognition".

 

this is one of the main reasons that I will not list caches here anymore. I have no beef with an association representing it's members nor do I have a problem with them imposing their guidelines on their members. Nearly all associations do this. The problem I have is that what is now happening is exactly what we were categorically told would not happen back when GAGB was started. The promise was that GC reviewers would not hold people to the GAGB guidelines. So, now the gagb make the rules for the rest of us and we are told to swallow it.

I'm sure that if you prefer, the UK reviewers could announce that they will henceforth adhere to the following guidelines (1,2,3...) and say "any resemblance to those drafted by the GAGB is purely coincidental". But they would be insulting everyone's intelligence by so doing.

 

As a listing site, Groundspeak clearly has an interest in the image of the game being a positive one, which in each country will mean something slightly different, but in almost all cases will generally involve trying to avoid the words "Geocaching" and "bomb" appearing in the same headline. They are therefore going to listen to the people in each country who have ideas as to the best way of avoiding that.

 

In the UK, the police are big on terrorism, so it's important to reassure them that geocachers are aware of the police's concerns. It's not realistic to imagine that either a listing site - especially one run by a company on the scale of Groundspeak - or an association of people playing a game, can say "sorry, HM Constabulary, we're going to do things our way". The need to respect constraints imposed by law enforcement can occasionally trump previously stated good intentions. Sure, you can "get all civil liberties"(*) about it, and you'd be "right" to do so in several important abstract senses, but you'd better have a good lawyer and deep pockets.

 

It might be interesting to consider what would happen if four listing sites shared the UK geocache listing "business" equally. Would the police be any more inclined to deal with four web sites, several of whom have admin staff located 7-9 time zones away, than they are to deal with one? I doubt it. There has to be a local voice, and if it isn't the GAGB, then who is it going to be?

 

Don't forget, also, that the press loves trends. If there is another "bomb" incident next month, and one the month after, then some reporter will have spotted a trend, and we'll be off on the smear cycle. "Geocaching seems like a harmless pastime, but why does this well-known UK geocacher have a picture of himself carrying an automatic weapon on his profile?". Etc etc. Before you know it, we're being regulated, and pleas that "the other two were listed at TerraCaching, they don't have a strong enough review process", etc, will get washed away in the tsunami of "it's disgusting, something must be done, I'm going to write to my MP". If you're in any doubt about this, look what happened in South Carolina when legislators decided to jump on what they thought was a bandwagon going past. Editorial columns in local papers were suddenly appearing denouncing geocachers as vandals who urinated on graves.

 

So there is a huge interest in everyone who calls themselves a geocacher, regardless of their listing site affiliation, getting behind a sensible set of guidelines. I don't know if the GAGB proposals are as good as they could be, but I'm pretty certain that the people who sat down to draft them did their best. Those who are not around the table or contributing (and from my understanding, the GAGB is hardly the House of Lords in terms of how hard it is to get in) probably need to accept that this is not a perfect democracy, which is a pretty good mirror of life in general. (I often think that a lot of the "disappointment" in geocaching is due to people discovering that, despite the slightly magical nature of finding hidden stuff, it obeys all the laws of economics.)

 

 

(*) For what it's worth, I'm more "Independent" than "Daily Mail", and I sympathise with the view that the police are massively overreacting here, but the "fight against terrorism" still has the power to get everyone's attention - to the extent that, apparently, they don't have time to investigate phone-hacking, as we saw at the Select Committee hearings yesterday. That's just the way it is.

Link to comment

Personal comment and not from the GAGB Committee

 

Maybe, now that there is a consultation thread been opened, some of the posters could post some suggestions rather that just complain.

We have... I'm more on the no new rules side.

 

What AW said and the way it was put matches my thoughts on the bom scare and reaction.

Link to comment

Personal comment and not from the GAGB Committee

 

Maybe, now that there is a consultation thread been opened, some of the posters could post some suggestions rather that just complain.

 

1. The problem isn't simply "people acting furtively", it's "people acting furtively" PLUS "package that might conceivably be a bomb".

 

2. Education doesn't work, except very very slowly. You can't suddenly educate geocachers to behave more responsively, that's a very long term project. And you can't educate the public to know about geocaching, there's no channel for doing that, except very very slowly.

 

3. Any rule must be simple and enforcable.

 

So I suggest "Any urban cache must be a micro".

 

Where urban means "within 25 meters of inhabited buildings" and micro means "35mm, keysafe, or smaller".

Link to comment

Personal comment and not from the GAGB Committee

 

Maybe, now that there is a consultation thread been opened, some of the posters could post some suggestions rather that just complain.

 

1. The problem isn't simply "people acting furtively", it's "people acting furtively" PLUS "package that might conceivably be a bomb".

 

2. Education doesn't work, except very very slowly. You can't suddenly educate geocachers to behave more responsively, that's a very long term project. And you can't educate the public to know about geocaching, there's no channel for doing that, except very very slowly.

 

3. Any rule must be simple and enforcable.

 

So I suggest "Any urban cache must be a micro".

 

Where urban means "within 25 meters of inhabited buildings" and micro means "35mm, keysafe, or smaller".

 

Sorry Alan, this would mean my poor little front garden cache - which most finders today remark on the size of it ("nice big cache") - would have to go.

 

I don't think so.

 

So the suggested guideline would need to be ammended to read:

 

"Any urban cache must be a micro, where urban means within 25 meters of inhabited buildings and micro means 35mm, keysafe, or smaller; unless the cache is placed with the landowner's permission."

 

- the last phrase is, of course, redundant as all caches have to have the landwoner's permission.

Link to comment

Personal comment and not from the GAGB Committee

 

Maybe, now that there is a consultation thread been opened, some of the posters could post some suggestions rather that just complain.

 

1. The problem isn't simply "people acting furtively", it's "people acting furtively" PLUS "package that might conceivably be a bomb".

 

2. Education doesn't work, except very very slowly. You can't suddenly educate geocachers to behave more responsively, that's a very long term project. And you can't educate the public to know about geocaching, there's no channel for doing that, except very very slowly.

 

3. Any rule must be simple and enforcable.

 

So I suggest "Any urban cache must be a micro".

 

Where urban means "within 25 meters of inhabited buildings" and micro means "35mm, keysafe, or smaller".

 

Sorry Alan, this would mean my poor little front garden cache - which most finders today remark on the size of it ("nice big cache") - would have to go.

 

I don't think so.

 

So the suggested guideline would need to be ammended to read:

 

"Any urban cache must be a micro, where urban means within 25 meters of inhabited buildings and micro means 35mm, keysafe, or smaller; unless the cache is placed with the landowner's permission."

 

- the last phrase is, of course, redundant as all caches have to have the landwoner's permission.

 

Nope. If the point of the guideline is to stop people from calling in suspect packages then it doesn't really matter if it's in your front garden or not. It would just have to go.

Link to comment

Education doesn't work, except very very slowly.

I disagree. Education does work, but first you have to start the education. Groundspeak's/GAGB's first response to any problem is never education but is always to make a new rule. The reasons for the rule are rarely explained - only those involved at the time understand it - so we end up with, as a couple of recent threads here show, rules which are simply followed because they're there, without meaning.

 

So I suggest "Any urban cache must be a micro".

Where urban means "within 25 meters of inhabited buildings" and micro means "35mm, keysafe, or smaller".

Don't we think there are enough micros already? (In case it's not clear, this is a rhetorical question.) The definition doesn't work anyway because it's not proximity but visibility (of the hunt from the building) which matters. If the cache is 30m from the house but cachers are clearly visible by the person sitting in the lounge then the definition won't help. Education and common sense will.

Link to comment

I am sorry, but it would not.

 

There is nothing illegal about the cache.

 

There is nothing illegal about inviting people to find it.

 

My immediate neighbours are aware of it's existence, it is clearly visible from the road and the footpath, it has been there for very nearly 10 years and has caused no problems.

 

GSP could, of course, refuse to list it - but I would merely suggest it is "grandfathered" in - but there's another possible anomaly.

Link to comment

I am sorry, but it would not.

 

There is nothing illegal about the cache.

 

There is nothing illegal about inviting people to find it.

 

My immediate neighbours are aware of it's existence, it is clearly visible from the road and the footpath, it has been there for very nearly 10 years and has caused no problems.

 

GSP could, of course, refuse to list it - but I would merely suggest it is "grandfathered" in - but there's another possible anomaly.

 

Oh I have a lunckbox hidden within 100m of a hospital. I am not suggesting that these rules are good. I personally think it's something of an over reaction. But if this is a genuine need to remove anything large enough to cause a large explosion then just because you have said you don't mind it being in your garden shouldn't make any difference.

Link to comment

I've done your front garden cache, and a very nice cache it was. Plus I met you at the time, which was also nice.

 

But I've done so many "front garden caches" where I've felt really uncomfortable, because a GPS is easily 10 meters plus or minus, and could be 20, and this means that there's often several houses that could be the possibilities. And not many front garden caches give you any additional info that can narrow it down to a single house.

 

In one case, I was expected to walk up a drive to the front door and rummage around next to the front door, and I felt that any of a few different houses could have been the right one. So I bottled out of the cache until I was able to contact the cache owner and confirm that it was the right house.

 

So, when a neighbour sees someone furtling around someone's front door and calls the police, they're a world of pain to follow.

 

So, I agree it isn't illegal to put a cache in your own front garden. But it can trigger a major problem, unless it's done with the understanding that cachers don't necessarily know that they're at the right house.

Link to comment

Education doesn't work, except very very slowly.

I disagree. Education does work, but first you have to start the education. Groundspeak's/GAGB's first response to any problem is never education but is always to make a new rule. The reasons for the rule are rarely explained - only those involved at the time understand it - so we end up with, as a couple of recent threads here show, rules which are simply followed because they're there, without meaning.

 

So I suggest "Any urban cache must be a micro".

Where urban means "within 25 meters of inhabited buildings" and micro means "35mm, keysafe, or smaller".

Don't we think there are enough micros already? (In case it's not clear, this is a rhetorical question.) The definition doesn't work anyway because it's not proximity but visibility (of the hunt from the building) which matters. If the cache is 30m from the house but cachers are clearly visible by the person sitting in the lounge then the definition won't help. Education and common sense will.

 

I didn't say that education doesn't work. I said it does work, but very very slowly. So I agree that education should be started, but we shouldn't expect any effects for some years. Meanwhile, we seem to have an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

We can't rely on a sudden increase in common sense. People already have common sense, and the amount of common sense that they have isn't going to change, so if there was a problem during the Wetherby Incident, then there is still a problem.

 

No, there aren't enough micros already :-). Or enough smalls, regulars or larges.

 

The 25 meter figure is something I just guessed, but it means there's a simple rule, that reviewers can easily check (OS maps show buildings).

If someone suggested 50 meters, that would be OK by me.

 

I've been challenged quite often by muggles (hence my "British Slug Survey" badge, although sometimes I say "I'm on a sort of treasure hunt"), and from my experience, "acting suspiciously" doesn't lead to anything. One muggle asked for my name and address, and then I asked for his, he decided that he wasn't actually that keen on getting involved. Once I was challenged three times "Can I help you?" "No thanks, I'm fine" while hunting for a cache near a fast-food van. When I found the cache eventually, I showed it to the owners, and they were quite tickled by the whole thing. Maybe I have an honest face?

 

Once I was lying down on a busy pavement, groping under a bridge over a canal, and slowly working my way along. People just walked around me. No-one seemed to be suspicious of what I was doing, no-one asked me. One guy asked me if I was OK, "I'm fine thanks" and he walked on.

 

In the Wetherby Incident it was "acting suspiciously" *PLUS* "package that could have been a bomb".

 

I've been challenged by police a few times. In each case, I just told them about "I'm geocaching, a sort of treasure hunt" and there's never been a problem with that (and if they want to know details, I'm happy to give them).

 

Hence my suggestion of, "Any urban cache must be a micro". Because a micro doesn't look like it could possibly be a bomb.

Link to comment

I suggest that if we're going to ban [1] caches which a cacher places on his own land with the knowledge and understanding of his neighbours then we might as well all give up the hobby and throw the GPSs in the bin. Come on, people, let's get real.

 

[1] "Ban", in this context, means "Groundspeak won't list it". There are, of course, plenty of other listing sites which take a more enlightened and educated attitude.

Link to comment
In the Wetherby Incident it was "acting suspiciously" *PLUS* "package that could have been a bomb".

I think the "wires" were also a factor.

 

I too have been challenged by the police ("challenged" is actually too strong a word - they've always been more curious than anything). An honest, polite answer has never failed. But then I'm a 56 year old man who often caches with his err... year old wife. A twenty-something lone male may be viewed differently.

 

What we're really saying is that a combination of things came together in Wetherby and had an undesirable outcome. But we must keep in mind that this was one incident in ten years of caching and 160 years of letterboxing in this country. We should be cautious of making on-the-hoof rules to deal with an unusual situation. Especially if the rule is ill-thought out and won't achieve the objective.

Link to comment

We personally carry some small tri-fold leaflets that explain all about geoaching and on the occasions that we have been challenged by other members of the public we explain what we are doing without giving away the possible location and when we were approached by members of the police force (3 occasions) we simply gave them a copy of the leaflet to read. Everybody was happy and left us alone to get on and do our thing.

Link to comment

Well well! I have just made one of my infrequent visits to this forum just to see what was happening in the world of Geocaching. What a lot of fuss and bother in Wetherby!! I do feel for the poor Geocacher who ended up with a criminal record for indulging in what he had every right to believe was an innocent activity. The culpability of the cache owner and the listing site for encouraging to go hunting there has to be questioned.

 

And then this thread and its discussion of the proposed new RULE by GSP.

 

But what surprised me more than anything was just how much I agree with Alan White ;) "Old timers" will know that Alan and I frequently disagreed with many Geocaching topics way back when, but what he says about this idea is spot one and eloquently stated. Nice one Alan and my hat off to you for expressing my exact thoughts.

 

One more thing that has been alluded to by several people. Whatever happens with this new idea, it would be nice if GSP came clean with their customers and stopped referring to "Guidelines". The time is long gone when there was any leeway - what you have now are inflexible RULES. That's fine, it's their site so they can do what they want but they should stop misleading cachers by calling them Guidelines and suggesting they are anything else but RULES. GAGB have true Guidelines because they do not have the power to enforce them, Groundspeak have Rules because they do have that power.

Link to comment

I do feel for the poor Geocacher who ended up with a criminal record for indulging in what he had every right to believe was an innocent activity.

To me this thread is so much hot air; not because people are right or wrong but because we don't know what criminal activity the cacher was arrested for and what he was charged with.

 

Without that information it's all speculation. We seem to be assuming that searching for a geocache in an urban location is legal...but after this incident, it seems not to be the case. In other words, you can be arrested and charged simply for picking up a container and replacing it, whilst looking a little furtive. Even if you can prove that it was all innocent and above board.

 

So there must be a law forbidding such activity. Until we know what that law is, I don't see that there is any point in discussing rules or guidelines to protect us from it.

 

For instance, if the container says "Geocache" on the side and if the police know that it's a geocache; can you still be arrested? It appears in the Wetherby incident that the cache was labelled clearly, and by the time the cacher was taken to the station it was known to be a geocache. Yet he was still formally cautioned. Therefore, any such rules and guidelines are pointless.

Link to comment

We personally carry some small tri-fold leaflets that explain all about geoaching and on the occasions that we have been challenged by other members of the public we explain what we are doing without giving away the possible location and when we were approached by members of the police force (3 occasions) we simply gave them a copy of the leaflet to read. Everybody was happy and left us alone to get on and do our thing.

 

What are you lot doing? Or - what am I doing wrong?

 

In the few years I've been caching I have never been questioned by the police, knowingly been observed by the police, questioned by a muggle, interrupted by a muggle, or bothered in any way, shape or form by anybody that wasn't already a cacher.

 

If an urban cache doesn't look like I can walk straight up to it, pull it out, sign the log and replace it as found without hassle, I don't. :laughing:

Link to comment

I've been challenged maybe 8 or 9 times. I've had more than half join me on the hunt... Hopefully I've created at least one new cacher! I'm always open though.

 

Reasons for caution, apart from those unlikely ones, could include simple things like trying to mislead the police whilst thy are dealing with a possible terrorist threat. Always best to be 100% transparent in these cases.

 

There's nothing about geocaching that should get you arrested and charged... So there must be more to it.

Link to comment

I am sorry, but it would not.

 

There is nothing illegal about the cache.

 

There is nothing illegal about inviting people to find it.

 

My immediate neighbours are aware of it's existence, it is clearly visible from the road and the footpath, it has been there for very nearly 10 years and has caused no problems.

 

GSP could, of course, refuse to list it - but I would merely suggest it is "grandfathered" in - but there's another possible anomaly.

I can't wait to see GS/GAGB representatives tell the police that this particular bomb scare was "grandfathered in" rather than just not complying with the rules!!!!!

 

Now my Dodgy old friend... I'd best get that front garden of yours found before it's too late!

 

Bring on another rule/guideline... It won't affect me as such... But if will kill a lot of fun for lots of people over several years because of 1 single event. The cachers want to find caches... That's all. When people caught BSE or salmonella did the government insist we all went vegetarian? It would have worked. We're in danger of doing something that stupid.

Link to comment

I can't wait to see GS/GAGB representatives tell the police that this particular bomb scare was "grandfathered in" rather than just not complying with the rules!!!!!

 

Now my Dodgy old friend... I'd best get that front garden of yours found before it's too late!

 

Bring on another rule/guideline... It won't affect me as such... But if will kill a lot of fun for lots of people over several years because of 1 single event. The cachers want to find caches... That's all. When people caught BSE or salmonella did the government insist we all went vegetarian? It would have worked. We're in danger of doing something that stupid.

 

I agree with NB... I still can't believe that the examples set by photographers is being ignored here - despite there being strong parallels. Photographers have been harassed by less-informed officers for appearing to be terrorists doing reconnaissance with their large DSLR cameras... did photographer organisations come up with a blanket rule for ALL photographers in the UK agreeing not photograph certain buildings or use PAS instead of DLSRs or act in a certain way? No, photographer organisations educated their photographers to challenge unlawful actions of officers and authority types (who do not have powers of arrest but acted like it).

 

It is every civilains duty to challenge bad laws, stand up to unlawful rules and processes and hold authorities to account. I am a civilain of the UK (or subject of the Queen) first, geocacher second - as such when challenged by authorities with or without justification I will respond as a civilian, not as some kind of craven apparatchik who is trying to negotiate deals to keep his hobby safely in the closet.

 

I've not really had a use for the GAGB myself. I was introduced to geocaching in Canada and there was the Groundspeak website and that was it. When I came to the UK this whole GAGB thing I found confusing and perhaps counter-intuitive from my unique perspective. I've never actively complained about the GAGB, and when I negotiated permissions for a SSSI near my current home, I had no problem with it being added to GAGB database. But I think to further nail my colours to the mast - I'm starting to come down on the side that is against the GAGB. They don't represent me. I don't want to join either for representation as the only vote I would cast is to disband it - which wouldn't really justify my joining.

 

I've done some degree of geocaching in up to 12 countries now... I'm certain that a number of those countries don't have anything similar to the GAGB and they don't need it either, despite in a couple of cases much more authoritarian governments.

 

By all means geocaching organisations and groups are great for support and social, but when they start speaking for everyone and creating arbitrary rules, they go beyond a 'support' or a 'social' to an institution, and IMHO the worst thing you can do to any kind of personal activity is institutionalise it.

Link to comment

The guidelines for dealing with urban caches already exist

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

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

 

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.printer.friendly&id=11

 

Perhaps - if these were enforced - there wouldn't be a need to introduce new guidelines specific to the UK!

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

The guidelines for dealing with urban caches already exist

 

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

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

 

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.printer.friendly&id=11

 

Perhaps - if these were enforced - there wouldn't be a need to introduce new guidelines specific to the UK!

My word... we've been asked to reinvent the wheel!

Link to comment

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

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

Pretty much all UK property is "private"; and in the case of the Wetherby incident permission would have made no difference. Permission would have been obtained from the owner of the shopping area who would probably not keep all local shopkeepers informed of the geocaching situation. Anyway, we don't know what the geocacher was charged with. It may even have been unrelated to the cache incident, although the inference is that it's something to do with picking up something and putting it back down.

 

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

That would effectively ban most, if not all, urban caches. There aren't many places in towns and cities where there are no passers-by at certain times of the day, and even with a big hint available, GPS often forces people to search a fairly wide area before they spot a cache. In any case, even if you immediately grab the container and quickly replace it, there's a chance that you'll be reported by a concerned shopkeeper ot resident. Then you might be arrested for whatever the crime is.

But obviously, you should use common sense when placing a cache. No rules or guidelines will help someone who has little common sense, however, and those that do use common sense don't need the rules.

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container.

The Wetherby cache was exceptionally clearly labelled, but that cut no ice with the arresting officers. One can only assume that the fact that it's clearly a geocache makes no difference to whatever the criminal act is perceived to be. The person involved may have just picked up an abandoned lunch box from under the planter, seen that it was damaged, and replaced it, then made a phone call. It appears from all the evidence that such behaviour is criminal and can lead to heavy punishment. So marking the lunchbox as a "geocache" is irrelevant.

 

Perhaps - if these were enforced - there wouldn't be a need to introduce new guidelines specific to the UK!

 

They seem to be of little use, and unenforceable anyway.

Link to comment

1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

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

Pretty much all UK property is "private"; and in the case of the Wetherby incident permission would have made no difference. Permission would have been obtained from the owner of the shopping area who would probably not keep all local shopkeepers informed of the geocaching situation. Anyway, we don't know what the geocacher was charged with. It may even have been unrelated to the cache incident, although the inference is that it's something to do with picking up something and putting it back down.

 

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

That would effectively ban most, if not all, urban caches. There aren't many places in towns and cities where there are no passers-by at certain times of the day, and even with a big hint available, GPS often forces people to search a fairly wide area before they spot a cache. In any case, even if you immediately grab the container and quickly replace it, there's a chance that you'll be reported by a concerned shopkeeper ot resident. Then you might be arrested for whatever the crime is.

But obviously, you should use common sense when placing a cache. No rules or guidelines will help someone who has little common sense, however, and those that do use common sense don't need the rules.

 

2. Label your geocache. To avoid confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label it as a "geocache" on the outside of the container.

The Wetherby cache was exceptionally clearly labelled, but that cut no ice with the arresting officers. One can only assume that the fact that it's clearly a geocache makes no difference to whatever the criminal act is perceived to be. The person involved may have just picked up an abandoned lunch box from under the planter, seen that it was damaged, and replaced it, then made a phone call. It appears from all the evidence that such behaviour is criminal and can lead to heavy punishment. So marking the lunchbox as a "geocache" is irrelevant.

 

Perhaps - if these were enforced - there wouldn't be a need to introduce new guidelines specific to the UK!

 

They seem to be of little use, and unenforceable anyway.

 

How is having permission unenforcable?

 

Short of banning any cache that isn't painted day-glo orange with an illuminated arrow above it, what would you suggest as a guideline to cache hiders? An education programme and an accessible database for the Police aren't guidelines - they have no direct bearing on a cache hider.....

Link to comment

How is having permission unenforcable?

 

Short of banning any cache that isn't painted day-glo orange with an illuminated arrow above it, what would you suggest as a guideline to cache hiders? An education programme and an accessible database for the Police aren't guidelines - they have no direct bearing on a cache hider.....

In many cases you could verify that some sort of permission was obtained at the time of the cache placement. But in practice, the reviewers don't have the facility to check on this and be sure that all the correct people are in the know. Added to that, after a few months or years the permission may well be useless, as staff and ownership may change.

Also, permission was only one part of your argument. The others are to do with labelling the cache and ensuring that it's in a sensible place; both unenforceable.

 

In any case, none of this would have prevented the incident and the subsequent arrest.

 

I can't suggest any guideline to cache hiders as we haven't been told what the real problem was with the cache retrieval. A cacher was arrested and charged with an offence as yet undisclosed. As we don't know what the offence was, guidelines based on speculation are unlikely to help us place caches that will prevent seekers falling into committing the same crime. I was under the erroneous impression that if you pick something up in the street and replace it, even a bit furtively, then the worst that happens is that the police will ask you to explain your actions. If you have a valid explanation (geocaching, for instance), you've committed no offence. Clearly, this is not the case; but I don't know what I'd be charged with if I was arrested for geocaching. So until I am, I'll have to risk it and there's nothing in the guidelines that helps me.

Link to comment
I've not really had a use for the GAGB myself. I was introduced to geocaching in Canada and there was the Groundspeak website and that was it. When I came to the UK this whole GAGB thing I found confusing and perhaps counter-intuitive from my unique perspective. I've never actively complained about the GAGB, and when I negotiated permissions for a SSSI near my current home, I had no problem with it being added to GAGB database. But I think to further nail my colours to the mast - I'm starting to come down on the side that is against the GAGB. They don't represent me. I don't want to join either for representation as the only vote I would cast is to disband it - which wouldn't really justify my joining.

 

You should now be aware that the UK is possibly the most complicated area in regards to Landowner issues in the world. Given that compared to many other places we are so small and fragmented in regards to who owns what Land.

 

The GAGB has been responsible for UK Geocachers, not having to Pay a Fee for a Permit to Place a Geocache, with Multiple Large Landowners. Why? Because the GAGB negotiated that out!

 

The GAGB after years of repeated Negotiations, achieved a National Geocache Placement Agreement with the National Trust (whose own internal document on Geocaching, states that the Property Manager has to "Find a Suitable Alternative Location" if the chosen one is not suitable)

 

The GAGB were responsible for the Woodland Trust Agreement.

 

The GAGB was close to negotiating a National Agreement with the Forestry Commission, until the Negotiation was brought to a halt. Due to a Manager within the FC, stating that Geocaching should be required to pay a Fee like other activities. A National Agreement with the FC, will be returned in the future.

 

The GAGB were responsible for the New Forest Agreement

 

The GAGB were involved in negotiations with the Royal Park Senior Management, unfortunately the Royal Parks Senior Manager and a Sargent from the Royal Parks Police Division (they are now part of the Met Police) were totally intransigent at that meeting . The Government simply consulting the same person over the 10 Downing St , the GAGB will return to that issue in the future.

 

There are just some of the things the GAGB, have done for the UK Community. Of course if you and others are quite happy to pay a fee to place geocaches in the UK, then of course the Association that you have no time for, can stop negotiating on the behalf of the UK Community.

 

Here is a fact , if even one Landowner successfully charged a Fee for the Placement of Geocaches. Then every major Landowner would follow the example. So you'd every FC area charging a fee to place a cache.

 

The NW FC wanted a £30 fee for a 3 year Permit to place caches. That did not give permission, just covered them processing each request within that 3 year period. It took 3 years of request Geocachers did not Buy a Permit. For the NW FC to quietly drop that Fee, after they conducted a trial in Cumbria.

 

If I hadn't known that the GAGB was continuing to Negotiate out Placement Fee's, I would not have spent 3 years requesting every cacher who placed a cache within that period on NW FC property, not to Purchase a Permit. That must number over 100 Geocachers over the 3 year period, who agreed to comply with that request.

 

That is part of the benefit created by the Association which you and several others have no time or interest in! I'll look forward to your comments in the future, if you place a cache on a Landowners Property, one where the GAGB Negotiated out the Fee. Or alternatively the GAGB is disbanded as some within the community wish to see, and you have to start paying Fees to place Geocaches (and that would affect every Listing Site!) So do you fancy forking out £30/40/50 to place caches?

 

Deci

Link to comment

Paying for anything isn't a problem. I have NT membership, that I only use as a permit to park... I'd probably be financially better off paying for the car park. Yeah, some decent landowner agreements made... By the GAGB and individuals. I'd best not comment openly on new forest one!

 

I'd need one permit to hide caches... It may cost £40 or so... As I'd place all in the same general area. I think I can handle less than £15 a year.

 

On top of that, we all know that permission hasn't been granted on lots of the caches we've found. There's one round here where the landowners definitely don't know it's there, and if they did we'd have another black eye for the game.

 

So all in all, I'd probably like to pay... As then people would think twice about hiding another film canister in a boring location...

Link to comment

<snip>

 

 

 

I know I didn't explicitly mention it, but I thought it would be obvious the SSSI situation I mentioned did not involve the GAGB at all - the reviewer asked me if I minded this being put on the GAGB database and I said I didn't mind.... perhaps I should have considered licensing the permission to the GAGB instead as it seems there's money to be made here?

 

Regarding my other caches at current - I searched the GAGB db, I found no info on land agreements anywhere I have placed them. I found no agreements with my local council or any landowners within my local area - if there were agreements, I haven't been informed and the GAGB db is out of date.

 

Regardless I see no purpose to the GAGB from my perspective other than to give some kind of legitimacy to the kind of people who would charge for this kind of thing. I don't need to consult the GAGB if I want to go picnic in a park, ride a bike, play volleyball, photograph, play hide and seek or even create an easter egg hunt.... which brings me onto the main thing which really sticks in my craw about this whole 'legitimising' of the hobby. What are the GAGB doing about people who have never heard of geocaching, and yet do this kind of thing with families and teenagers all the time - hide and seek, treasure hunts and easter egg hunts? Are they giving a "bloody nose"* to geocaching also inadvertently?

 

Should the GAGB start getting involved in family affairs where they do an easter egg hunt in the local park in order to ensure that the easter egg hunt is in no way accidentally associated with geocaching (or complies with all the guidelines of the GAGB)?

 

Let's just say the GAGB didn't exist and some land owners did want to start charging £30 for the placement of a geocache. Not only would land owners find they are no longer consulted over geocaches - they'd effectively have to police all the other sports and activities that take place on their land too, to ensure not only fairness, but that unofficial geocaches are not left either - an impossible or costly task I imagine. And what would land-owners do if the hobby went underground - such as the thing which inspired London Invasion http://coord.info/GCYCDM, urban knitting, flash mobbing, guerrilla gardening or bookcrossing? Most of these activities could cause similar security concerns called in by curtain-twitchers.

 

Fact of the matter is if geocaching was effectively banned in the UK, they'd have to then police it - and then they'd have to work out how to legislate treasure hunts. As they do with terrorism legislation we would probably eventually see overuse and abuse - It's not hard to imagine a 5 year old kids birthday party broken up by a police raid because someone was doing an unlicensed treasure hunt. Perhaps it would have the opposite effect? They wouldn't even have the resource or inclination in most cases. Just like other laws that are not enforced in the UK such as format shifting media which is illegal and yet everyone does it.

 

Final disclaimer, I don't have any problem with any members of GAGB, any of the reviewers or moderators, just question the existence of such an organisation itself. If the reviewers are GAGB certified and that informs there decisions to publish fine, but it doesn't inform my decision to place a cache or partake in geocaching (for the former, I understand my caches are published by Groundspeak reviewers, not GAGB reviewers though Groundspeak reviewers may be GAGB members).

 

*A phrase I have seen used on these forums.

Link to comment

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

That would effectively ban most, if not all, urban caches.

The quoted guideline doesn't ban urban caches. It merely suggests that cachers give consideration to the suitability of their chosen location particularly with respect to security concerns. In other words, it tries to educate cachers to use common sense as does this apposite extract from the same guideline:

For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows....use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

I must say I'm impressed by the common sense and clarity which Groundspeak shows in this guideline, which has clearly been produced with the bomb scares in the US in mind, yet GAGB wants to impose a much more draconian rule on UK cachers. If the current guideline works in the US, where security is much more in the forefront than here, why does GAGB think that it doesn't work in the UK?

 

I'm grateful to keehotee for quoting the guidelines (they're very difficult to follow since they were reorganised) as they say exactly what I and many others have been saying. The present Groundspeak guidelines are perfectly adequate for preventing a recurrence of Wetherby: no change or addition is required.

Link to comment

This is particularily ironic for me I was caching in New York yesterday in full view of apartment windows, passing cop cars and roamers. Obviously Wetherbys Finest have much more pressing security concerns than the NYPD!

 

1.2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious.

That would effectively ban most, if not all, urban caches.

The quoted guideline doesn't ban urban caches. It merely suggests that cachers give consideration to the suitability of their chosen location particularly with respect to security concerns. In other words, it tries to educate cachers to use common sense as does this apposite extract from the same guideline:

For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows....use common sense when selecting hiding places and containers.

I must say I'm impressed by the common sense and clarity which Groundspeak shows in this guideline, which has clearly been produced with the bomb scares in the US in mind, yet GAGB wants to impose a much more draconian rule on UK cachers. If the current guideline works in the US, where security is much more in the forefront than here, why does GAGB think that it doesn't work in the UK?

 

I'm grateful to keehotee for quoting the guidelines (they're very difficult to follow since they were reorganised) as they say exactly what I and many others have been saying. The present Groundspeak guidelines are perfectly adequate for preventing a recurrence of Wetherby: no change or addition is required.

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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

 

All? Really?

 

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

Link to comment
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.

How? I don't see it.

 

Seems reviewers put the discussion here, and NW forums, EM stumbled on it... don't see any GAGB pushing this out to the masses.

 

So, it seems GAGB committee were quite happy to make a rule and have it applied to us.

 

NB... this is the way it SEEMS... the intent may have been different... but it's not always WHAT you do that counts.

Edited by NattyBooshka
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...