Jump to content

Consultation on GAGB Urban guideline


Recommended Posts

Following the Wetherby Bomb scare we – the GAGB committee - have listened to the feedback on the Urban guideline and realised that we should have done this better.

 

We’ve decided to run a consultation period on the new Urban guideline and invite cachers to suggest new wording for the guideline. This consultation will run until Friday night, midnight (BST).

 

Discussions are ongoing with the Police both at the ACPO and individual Police Force level, so further changes may yet become necessary as a result of these discussions. We are also in dialogue with Groundspeak Reviewers.

This guideline came from the response to the Wetherby Bomb Scare. A cacher (finder) was reported behaving suspiciously. The Police Force discovered a box wrapped in black tape and the Bomb Squad were called, who dealt with the box. The cacher received a caution.

 

The guideline that we issued last Friday is as follows:

“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, OKxxxxxx or OXxxxxxx). 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”

 

The purpose of the guideline is to alert cache hiders to the potential security concerns of placing a cache in an environment with muggles who may become suspicious of cache finders’ behaviour. We have described this as “Urban” and need a definition of Urban, proposals would be very welcome.

 

Early discussions with the Police highlighted the need to have way to identify a cache quickly if it is identified as a suspect package. A listing site reference such as GCxxxxxx, OKxxxxxx or OXxxxxxx is the fastest, most reliable way to do this. Identification of a cache via mapping may also be useful but does require communication between an Officer on the ground and control room of a precise location to identify a cache, and does not cover the physical stages of multi and puzzle caches. A reference would ideally be carried on any container bid enough to carry it, we need to clarify the size of container.

 

The Wetherby cache was deemed suspicious partly because it was covered in black tape and included a cable tie as a handle. This is addressed in the guideline by specifying clear sides for caches large enough to be of concern. However, this has raised questions about how easy it will be to check contents, the size of cache which this should apply to, and how to define this size.

 

The requirement to include a reference to this guideline on cache pages is now being reconsidered by the GAGB committee on the basis that GAGB should make recommendations and not state requirements in guidelines. Such a statement would help draw attention to the guideline so a recommendation to include the guideline is being considered.

 

Comments can be made on identical postings on the GAGB forum, GAGB facebook page or Groundspeak UK forum and will be reviewed by the GAGB committee.

 

On a related note, I would welcome volunteers from Police Officers within the caching community who are willing to become Points of Contact for their Force. Please contact me through my profile.

 

Dave Edwards

Chairman GAGB

Edited by The Wombles
Link to comment

Is there any way to ask GS if this could be added to the weekly newsletter Otherwise the first thing most cachers will know about it is when their cache review is refused because of the new guideline by which time the cache box could be already in place

 

And as I said before Micro is the smallest 'official' cache size so 'micro or bigger' includes all caches why not 'where size permits'

Link to comment

Can I suggest that apart from talking to the ACPO who are probably not cachers, you get some input from cachers who are also police officers. They will at least have a view of this from both sides of the fence.

 

Labelling the cache externally is only going to work if the label can be seen without moving the cache. Just because a cache was placed in a certain way does not mean that it will be but back in the same way by another finder.

 

I really think that some thought should be given to a solution via education rather than via yet more rules. A lot of people think there are too many rules already. Adding rules does not stop people placing caches that disregard them.

 

Seriously consider whether any of this is needed at all! We have had one high profile incident in ten years.

 

Find out how the Met manage this as they seem to cope.

 

Find out what is done in the US where they have had bomb scares from caches.

 

Everyone stop getting all alarmist over the future of caching in urban UK

Link to comment

Can I suggest that apart from talking to the ACPO who are probably not cachers, you get some input from cachers who are also police officers. They will at least have a view of this from both sides of the fence.

 

Labelling the cache externally is only going to work if the label can be seen without moving the cache. Just because a cache was placed in a certain way does not mean that it will be but back in the same way by another finder.

 

I really think that some thought should be given to a solution via education rather than via yet more rules. A lot of people think there are too many rules already. Adding rules does not stop people placing caches that disregard them.

 

Seriously consider whether any of this is needed at all! We have had one high profile incident in ten years.

 

Find out how the Met manage this as they seem to cope.

 

Find out what is done in the US where they have had bomb scares from caches.

 

Everyone stop getting all alarmist over the future of caching in urban UK

 

I wish there was a 'Like' button, because your post would get a click from me.

 

+1 to all of it.

Link to comment
The cacher received a caution.

I think if you are going to include this sentence in your info you should only do so with more detail. If more detail isn't available then don't include it. It raises more questions, increases potential worry, and the consultation process may get bogged down into further (pointless) discussion about whether geocaching is illegal.

(It's pointless without more facts.)

Link to comment
The cacher received a caution.

I think if you are going to include this sentence in your info you should only do so with more detail. If more detail isn't available then don't include it. It raises more questions, increases potential worry, and the consultation process may get bogged down into further (pointless) discussion about whether geocaching is illegal.

(It's pointless without more facts.)

A very good point, as you can only receive a caution if you have carried out an illegal activity.

Link to comment

I have received conformation of the caution, the person receiving it, did not feel in a position to challenge it. Due to major ramifications with his employer, this person is now facing possible serious sanctions of his employer due to receiving a caution off the Police. This person has requested his details be kept confidential, due to the on-going situation he's facing with his employer. A request that the UK Reviewers and the GAGB will comply with.

 

Unless this person decides to take up a offer made on this forum for Pro Bono legal help over this issue, and the information becomes public. Or this Person or the Police reveal further information. The full details will remain confidential.

 

Given the location of the Bomb Incident and the fact that the person fully identified himself. It is up to the Police to explain why a Caution was given.

 

I've seen comments that a Serving Police Officer who is a Geocacher, attended the incident after the EOD team had attended, Identified the container as a Geocache and that it was Harmless. Despite this the EOD team continued with the Controlled Explosion. If this information is accurate, there seems to have been a major breakdown in communications, one which the Police need to investigate.

 

Exactly..what was the caution for?

 

For all we know he could have been abusive when he was spoken to and got a caution for that?

 

This persons employment is such, that to do so would have immediately guaranteed major sanctions off his employer, not as is current, the possibility of Sanctions that he is currently facing! That would not only place his future career at risk, but also current employment with them, in this time of sever Cuts in Expenditure.

 

Again I personally have had conformation of the persons Identity, who his employer is. And that he received a Police Caution.

 

Deci

 

Link to comment

Given the location of the Bomb Incident and the fact that the person fully identified himself. It is up to the Police to explain why a Caution was given.

 

 

Then could we ask the Police to explain why a caution was given?

 

Clearly, they believe that the cacher broke some law. It's important to me, and to all cachers, to know what law was broken, so that I can be sure not to inadvertantly, while searching for or replacing a cache, break the same law.

 

The police don't need to give details of the particular case, just an explanation of what behaviour by a geocacher, could lead to a breach of the law.

Link to comment

>>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, OKxxxxxx or OXxxxxxx).<<

 

"Micros and larger" actually means all caches, since nanos don't have any official existence. So, what you mean here is:

 

"All caches should be marked externally as a geocache with the relevant listing site reference (eg: GCxxxxxx, OKxxxxxx or OXxxxxxx)."

 

That's fine, but it means that we can't place nanos any more, since they're too small for the required marking.

 

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

 

That's actually not possible. 1) tupperware is translucent, not transparent, and you can't see what's inside. 2) the label marking it as a geocache will obscure the view of the contents. 3) A large log book on top of the cache will obscure the view of the contents.

 

So what that means is that all urban caches must be micros.

 

<<We have described this as “Urban” and need a definition of Urban, proposals would be very welcome.>>

 

Urban means, where there are houses.

 

 

I, for one, would be happy if all urban caches were micros. There's plenty of countryside where larger caches can be placed, and it's extremely unlikely that the bomd squad would be called to a wood in the middle of nowhere.

 

I'd suggest a relaxation of the rule that nanos be marked externally as a geocache; I find it hard to believe thatexpoding nanos are a possibility.

 

So, the rule would be:

 

In places where there is a house within 25 meters, the largest cache that may be placed is a 35mm micro or a keysafe, and if the cache is not a nano, then it must have its identification on the outside.

 

This is a nice simple rule, avoids the vague word "urban", and I think it meets the concerns of the police and the desires of many geocachers.

 

In the security industry, we have a term "security theater". That's when, to meet a possible threat, you do something that looks like it might be a precaution, but which actually does nothing much. For example, when I chain my bike to my car, I use a big long chain and a heavy-duty padlock. But the chain is actually just cheap metal, easy to cut - that's security theater. It works because it looks like it's doing something. A really strong chain of suitable length, would be eye-wateringly expensive.

 

What we're doing here, is security theater. If someone wanted to blow up a planter in Wetherby, they could just park a car-bomb next to it. If you can make a tupperware bomb, you can make a car bomb just as easily using materials available at any filling station. Or they could sign up to a geocaching web site, make their tupperware bomb, install it under the planter in Wetherby, lie to the reviewers about it being a micro, and pretty soon, the planter is history.

 

But Action Is Now Required.

 

The rule I've proposed will not make planters in Wetherby any safer, but it means that Action Has Been Taken, and we can get back to hunting for micros in ivy.

Link to comment

Urban means, where there are houses.

 

So, the rule would be:

 

In places where there is a house within 25 meters, the largest cache that may be placed is a 35mm micro or a keysafe, and if the cache is not a nano, then it must have its identification on the outside.

 

So industrial units and office blocks are fair game then?

 

You need to substitute "houses" with "buildings". But then you'll need to rely on a judgement call and info to the reviewer to differentiate buildings like barns, farmhouses, bus shelters, ad inf in rural areas ................

Link to comment

I like drsolly's suggestions as they clear up a lot of the questions that have been asked on other threads about the urban guideline. I have a cache that would be disallowed if we went on those guidelines as it's on the town common, however I have written permission from the Town Council to place it there. It wouldn't "work" in its hidey hole if it were a micro. I'll suggest the exception of "Unless written permission is obtained from the relevant authority". Or something like that... :)

Link to comment

"Police don't want to spoil people's fun and if people want to geocache then that's great" [1]. Those were the words of Chief Inspector Mick Hunter to the BBC a couple of days after the incident. That's a good start. Let's also say that geocaching per se is not illegal. Of course, that's a bit like saying that until recently using a handheld mobile phone while driving wasn't illegal either; but there was still a variety of offences which the police could use in such circumstances if they chose to. So it is with caching, especially in these days of draconian so-called "anti-terror" legislation. Unless the cacher in question wants to tell his story then we may never know what he was accused of. What we can say is that a caution can only be given if an offence has been committed and the accused admits the offence and agrees to receive the caution. As with any alleged offence, no-one should admit it without first taking legal advice. Since we may not know what actually occurred then we have to continue the discussion without that information.

 

There is a body of people in society and therefore in caching who believe that the answer to any particular problem or incident is a new rule. Anyone proposing a new rule must be able to demonstrate that the rule is needed and will be effective in the objective of preventing a recurrence of the problem which led to its creation whilst minimising any negative effects. The proposed rule is that an urban cache must be made of clear plastic and labelled externally as a geocache with the cache id; and the cache page must carry a particular form of words. Let's consider those.

 

The purpose of caching is to conceal a container so that it can be found by those who are looking for it but not by those who are not. I have no statistics but it seems to me that a clear container, being more obvious, is more likely to be found by a muggle and therefore more, not less, likely to arouse suspicion. Will a clear container make it easier to see the contents? Probably not: a collection of small toys and the logbook will surely obscure anything else so the entire contents can never be visible. Anyway, many cache items could look, at first glance, suspicious: a small compass (a timer?), a lanyard (wires?), a plastic brick (explosive?).

 

Moving on to the labelling, as far as I'm aware it's always been a rule/guideline/whatever that a cache should be labelled as such. Indeed, the cache in question was clearly labelled as a geocache using the standard, sold by Groundspeak, sticker. The proposal therefore reduces to the addition of the cache id, presumably to make it easier for officers to reference the cache on the appropriate listing site. Whether this would happen in the heat of a security alert is a moot point. In any case - one for the police officers here - is the first officer on the scene likely to want to get close enough to the cache to determine its contents and read the cache id?

 

The proposed wording is meaningless except - and I say this tongue in cheek - as an advert for GAGB. As the cache must comply with all applicable rules why single out that one for particular mention? Why not also require "this cache doesn't contain knives" or "this cache isn't in a plastic bag"? I'm reminded of the ludicrous notice that appears at petrol stations these days: "don't commit crime".

 

Would the proposal prevent a recurrence? Based on the above I suggest it would not. Those investigating the cache would surely react in exactly the same way as they did in Wetherby (though I do wonder if the proximity of so many army bases was a factor). Would they stop to try to examine the contents from outside? Would they try to read the label to see if it was a cache and obtain the cache id? Would they then go online to find out about the cache? And, most importantly, would they take the word of the placer that the suspect box is a cache? I doubt that any of those questions would be asked, never mind answered.

 

What the proposal does is to persuade the cache to announce itself: "I am not a bomb". Honestly, do we want or expect our police and army to believe that? Some years ago, in similar though less dramatic circumstances, an agreement was reached with the Metropolitan Police to minimise security concerns about caches in a small area of London. The very first time it was tested the agreement failed because the officers involved hadn't been briefed on the agreement; indeed, had never heard of geocaching. I suggest that both history and logic tell us that the proposed rule will have no effect whatever except, as usual with new laws, to hurt the innocent more than the guilty by imposing yet more conditions that will only be obeyed and used by the innocent.

 

The OP asks for suggestions on how to improve the wording of the proposed rule. That's something of a leading question as it assumes that a rule is required. Chief Inspector Hunter also said: "But in placing the caches, what I would say is, please apply some common sense to where you put them" [1]. Amen to that. The solution to this problem is common sense and education. I don't want to single out the owner of the cache in question but, honestly, who would agree that under a planter 2m from the door of a cafe in a busy town centre is an appropriate place for a cache? I've done many urban caches and it's possible to hide them and retrieve them without arousing suspicion. It's also possible to hide and retrieve them and look very suspicious indeed. There are placers who think that it's entertaining to hide an urban cache and make it very difficult to find because there are many hiding places and the hint is inadequate or absent.

 

I know I'm not the first to say this but the problem with urban caches isn't the container it's the hunt. Unless the hiding place is immediately obvious then anyone will appear suspicious while they search for the cache. "Use stealth" is synonymous with "I've put this cache in a really inappropriate place"; it is this mentality which needs to be challenged. Urban cache owners need to ask themselves "how will it look to the people in that office when cachers peer around this bench or under this railing?" Education is the key here, not another rule. But if there must be a rule then it needs to convey this paragraph and require a hint that easily and unambiguously reveals the cache location so that the seeker can quickly retrieve the cache and be on his/her way. Challenging hides should be left for more appropriate locations.

 

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14039229

Link to comment

What AW said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ rocks! Where do I sign? :)

 

Jon

Yeah... Well argued, and factually good... Would get my vote.

 

For a while I worked at Manchester airport. One driver at a taxi firm there raped a woman passenger. Business for the rest of them died for weeks. Putting "Not a rapist" on the cars wouldn't have helped...

 

Geocache means nothing to Joe Bloggs. Contents harmless is hard for a CO to guarantee unless they fist after every find. Writing "BOMB" onit would be more effective as nobody would take that seriously.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

Thank you AW, that is the first sensible approach I have heard.

 

The only possible guideline to come out of this could be that all caches within view of muggles/windows, regardless if it is Urban or Rural should have a spot on precise HINT, understandable by all - that way finders do not look suspicious.

Edited by perth pathfinders
Link to comment

Time for caching to retreat back into the woods from whence it came. Virtuals only in urban locations are the way forward. As others have said it's the searching that causes the suspicion and calls to the police, so whatever container you have, whatever you write on it, whatever you put on the cache page and whoever you get the permission of, won't totally prevent a recurrence of Wetherby.

 

If the GAGB is truly listing site independent it wouldn't have a problem having that rule would it?

 

Even with virtuals I can envision problems when a group of people doing something out of the ordinary near the easily alarmed (they might take a photograph. I've heard on these forums photographers have had a lot of problems already in cities with the new terrorist legislation).

 

Philip

Link to comment

Thank you AW, that is the first sensible approach I have heard.

 

The only possible guideline required would to be that all caches within view of muggles/windows, regardless if it is Urban or Rural should have a spot on precise HINT, understandable by all - that way finders do not look suspicious.

That's the only time I use hints... And I look before I hunt... If no muggles, I'd rather DNF than decode the hint. The CO can make it much easier for the hunter in urban/busy rural situations... So I'd vote for that too.

 

If I have to vote on anything I'd take short term membership of a site :)

Link to comment

Ok.

 

Problem with topic... Do what you like with a GAGB guideline, I'm not a member. I will follow geocaching RULES. So we should be making a UK rule, not consulting over a guideline.

 

Now, apart from the GAGB advert, and it being a GAGB guideline, I think the grandfathered in bit is stupid. A grandfathered in cache can cause as much damage as any new one surely? Or am I missing something.

 

Bomb scares are not good for business... I say this is a case, like royal parks, where grandfathering is just plain wrong.

Link to comment

While I've not always agreed with everything Alan has said in the past, in this instance he's put very eloquently what I was about to put very in-eloquently.

 

I've never been a fan of urban caches because a scruffy ol' fart in a camo jacket poking about outside someone's house or office just begs the attention of the security / law enforcement officers.

 

I feel that the reviewers have to take more responsibility. Many times, when criticised, they say "We're 'voluntarily employed' by Groundspeak and have to abide by Groundspeak's Rules and if a cache meets those rules, we HAVE to publish it." That's cobblers... They enforce the GAGB rules that have nothing what-so-ever to do with Groundspeak. More questions should be asked of the cache setter when an urban cache is submitted. An exact description of the location and where, exactly, the cache is hidden is essential... preferably with photographs... How close is the nearest building... stuff like that so that the reviewer can use THEIR common sense in approving it and not fall back on the old..."It meet the rules so we have to publish it" line.

Yeah... I know... more work for our poor, unpaid volunteers... all 20 of 'em... but it might just save someone else from getting a police caution, or worse.

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment

We are sure we used to read on Groundspeak guidelines that caches shouldn't be placed where searchers would feel uncomfortable searching ,but we can no longer find that statement.

 

It seems to us that caches that are close to and overlooked by habitable buildings,or business premises etc ,are becoming more prevailant than those that aren't.

Of our last four finds three were overlooked by nearby houses.

The one cache that wasn't overlooked that way was placed complying with the guidelines of a G.A.G.B. Permit Agreement!

 

It sometimes feels like it is no longer a game of just finding the cache but of having the luck of arriving at G.Z. when no-one is in the nearby gardens etc .

 

Some would say if you don't like them don't do them ,but with the growing trend for such placements more caches would be on the ignore list than not on it .

 

It seems to us the time is ripe for reviewers to have the backing to question the publication of new caches that have cache page details that state extreme stealth needed etc .

Link to comment

If anything, I'd still like to know what that caution was for.

I can always find a different hobby if need be, but something as serious as that can impact my personal and professional life.

 

Unfortunately unless the cacher in question or the police are willing to disclose this, everyone has their hands tied. The if one were to disclose and not the other could we truly take a balanced view?

Link to comment

If anything, I'd still like to know what that caution was for.

I can always find a different hobby if need be, but something as serious as that can impact my personal and professional life.

 

Unfortunately unless the cacher in question or the police are willing to disclose this, everyone has their hands tied. The if one were to disclose and not the other could we truly take a balanced view?

 

The thing is, until I know exactly what is or is not legal when I play this *hobby*, for me the entire discussion is moot. Why discuss something I can possibly no longer do due to the risks and subsequent consequences it will bring to my personal/professional life??

 

thats kinda for me the main point at the moment, the nano stickers etc will come afterwards, if that makes sense.

 

*edit - speeeling

Edited by Team Noodles
Link to comment

If anything, I'd still like to know what that caution was for.

I can always find a different hobby if need be, but something as serious as that can impact my personal and professional life.

 

Unfortunately unless the cacher in question or the police are willing to disclose this, everyone has their hands tied. The if one were to disclose and not the other could we truly take a balanced view?

What a person is charged with/cautioned for isn't protected information, and its divulgence in no way needs to give us a balanced view.

 

Eg. I'm charged with being drunk and disorderly... The local paper can report that.... I go to court... They can report that too. The first comes with no facts... The latter with a judgement.

 

Now, this cacher may have been charged with indecent exposure for all we know, which isn't in my game, so wouldn't be an issue for me.

Link to comment

Some of this expands on something I posted in the Yorkshire Forum in the days after the incident, and some has been covered by Alan White a bit further up.

 

The GAGB Urban Guideline in its current form exists to "assist matters" should a cache( r ) be reported as suspicious, but it does little to prevent the potential incident in the first place.

No matter how long you've been caching, at some point it's likely that you have been tempted to hide a cache in such a manner that the seekers have to put themselves in a compromising position should their hunt be witnessed by a muggle.

Some people resist that urge, some go ahead and place such a cache, and out of those, some will be in "urban" areas.

Geocaching has been rising in popularity massively over the years, and that's not going to stop anytime soon. The chances of "another Wetherby" are only going to increase unless a behavioural change is encouraged.

 

The GAGB has a well known guideline on Dry Stone Walls, but it is just that, a guideline. If the landowner gives permission, the reviewers are likely to publish a cache openly hidden in one.

A cache well may be hidden with full landowener permission in an urban area, but if a cacher looks suspicious looking for it, dear old Mrs Muggle is still going to report it to the police (and I've been reported twice in semi-urban locations where the cache did have full permission).

 

In my opinion, the GAGB, and the wider UK Geocaching Community, shouldn't be working towards "damage limitation", but "damage prevention". The message needs to be put out there that careless hides can cause problems, and equally, so can careless finders. How many cachers these days are "in it for the numbers", and will go for a cache no matter what? There should be no stigma attached to "walking by" and getting your smiley elsewhere.

 

I would prefer the guideline/advice to be sometime along these lines.....

 

"Geocaches hidden in populated areas might bring someone to an interesting location, but please be aware that a Geocacher witnessed going about a hunt can cause alarm to members of the public, and potentially cause security alerts, thus damaging the reputation of our pastime, which could lead to restrictions on Geocaching in the future.

If you want to bring your fellow Geocachers to such an area, first consider methods such as an offset multi, where the Geocacher is brought to the place of interest, but the actual container is located away from sensitive areas.

If you do place a container in a populated area, it should not be placed in a manner that could bring Geocaching in the UK into disrepute, such caches may be archived by the UK's Volunteer Reviewers."

 

Regarding the last part of that, there should also be no stigma attached to reporting unsuitable hides.

 

JMHO.

Edited by Jaz666
Link to comment

As previously stated on the another thread... whats the point in creating new guidelines if all the existing urban caches will not be forced to comply with these new guidelines, if it is deemed that serious that we need to have some urban cache guidelines for new urban caches, shouldn't we make then apply to all existing urban caches and not the usual grandfathered statement as this gives a mixed message to all those hiding and seeking any urban caches and any grandfathered cache could still kick start this issue off all over again.

Link to comment

If anything, I'd still like to know what that caution was for.

I can always find a different hobby if need be, but something as serious as that can impact my personal and professional life.

 

Unfortunately unless the cacher in question or the police are willing to disclose this, everyone has their hands tied. The if one were to disclose and not the other could we truly take a balanced view?

 

Unless the police and/or cache finder choose to reveal what actually led to the caution I really don’t feel in possession of enough information to participate in this consultation given that the person who originally placed the cache appears to have got away scot free.

Link to comment

With regard to the original finder, could they have been charged with littering? Seems a bit feeble but it would fit in (kind of) with any naughty doings.

 

All this seems to enhance the need to bring in a new cache size for the nanos and fake bolts, even if it`s just for the UK. Film cans and key safes become micros.

 

Personally, no matter where I am I always look before I start hunting, meaning that I check for obvious signs that don`t appear in nature, piles of stones/twigs, screws on top of roadside sign posts, obvious trails into areas of what look like no interest to others (otherwise known as Geotrails).

 

I agree that how you search can give away how dodgy you look, eg. I was with my family not too long ago in York on a shopping trip and we happened to be walking towards a very well hidden cache on a bridge when we spotted a group of people looking for the cache on said bridge, now, admittedly I knew there was a cache there but, the fact that 3 or 4 people seemed to be taking an unusual interest in a lamppost seemed odd as we approached. The fact that they all walked off when I stopped by the post enhanced my idea of what they where doing, in fact they only made it know what they where up to when I pointed to the cache, but the fact remains that I spotted them from at least 50ft away looking dodgy. I suppose anothe example could be one I experienced a few years ago walking through the local town centre. I passed a lad who looked nervous hanging around outside a jewellers in the centre of the town, 5 minutes later the same lad went past me at a speed Linford Christie would have been proud of followed by a couple of other lads who were asking if we`d seen anybody running past. It turns out the lad I`d seen had tried to rob said jewellers, I guess that what I`m trying to say is that if you think you look dodgy you probably do and that, once you`ve spotted what you think is the hiding spot you should be confident and quick in grabbing the cache. In urban areas having some sort of a bag can help greatly in concealing your movements from the GP but I find that a walk by looking for the cache , returning 10 minutes later is much better.

 

Is it possible to give the police the same access to cache co-ords as the reviewers have so that, in the event of a bomb threat they can sign on and see exactly where all parts of any caches in the area are, much the same as I believe the reviewers can, although this relies on knowledge of geocaching on behalf of the police service.

Link to comment

"Police don't want to spoil people's fun and if people want to geocache then that's great" [1]. Those were the words of Chief Inspector Mick Hunter to the BBC a couple of days after the incident. That's a good start. Let's also say that geocaching per se is not illegal. Of course, that's a bit like saying that until recently using a handheld mobile phone while driving wasn't illegal either; but there was still a variety of offences which the police could use in such circumstances if they chose to. So it is with caching, especially in these days of draconian so-called "anti-terror" legislation. Unless the cacher in question wants to tell his story then we may never know what he was accused of. What we can say is that a caution can only be given if an offence has been committed and the accused admits the offence and agrees to receive the caution. As with any alleged offence, no-one should admit it without first taking legal advice. Since we may not know what actually occurred then we have to continue the discussion without that information.

 

There is a body of people in society and therefore in caching who believe that the answer to any particular problem or incident is a new rule. Anyone proposing a new rule must be able to demonstrate that the rule is needed and will be effective in the objective of preventing a recurrence of the problem which led to its creation whilst minimising any negative effects. The proposed rule is that an urban cache must be made of clear plastic and labelled externally as a geocache with the cache id; and the cache page must carry a particular form of words. Let's consider those.

 

The purpose of caching is to conceal a container so that it can be found by those who are looking for it but not by those who are not. I have no statistics but it seems to me that a clear container, being more obvious, is more likely to be found by a muggle and therefore more, not less, likely to arouse suspicion. Will a clear container make it easier to see the contents? Probably not: a collection of small toys and the logbook will surely obscure anything else so the entire contents can never be visible. Anyway, many cache items could look, at first glance, suspicious: a small compass (a timer?), a lanyard (wires?), a plastic brick (explosive?).

 

Moving on to the labelling, as far as I'm aware it's always been a rule/guideline/whatever that a cache should be labelled as such. Indeed, the cache in question was clearly labelled as a geocache using the standard, sold by Groundspeak, sticker. The proposal therefore reduces to the addition of the cache id, presumably to make it easier for officers to reference the cache on the appropriate listing site. Whether this would happen in the heat of a security alert is a moot point. In any case - one for the police officers here - is the first officer on the scene likely to want to get close enough to the cache to determine its contents and read the cache id?

 

The proposed wording is meaningless except - and I say this tongue in cheek - as an advert for GAGB. As the cache must comply with all applicable rules why single out that one for particular mention? Why not also require "this cache doesn't contain knives" or "this cache isn't in a plastic bag"? I'm reminded of the ludicrous notice that appears at petrol stations these days: "don't commit crime".

 

Would the proposal prevent a recurrence? Based on the above I suggest it would not. Those investigating the cache would surely react in exactly the same way as they did in Wetherby (though I do wonder if the proximity of so many army bases was a factor). Would they stop to try to examine the contents from outside? Would they try to read the label to see if it was a cache and obtain the cache id? Would they then go online to find out about the cache? And, most importantly, would they take the word of the placer that the suspect box is a cache? I doubt that any of those questions would be asked, never mind answered.

 

What the proposal does is to persuade the cache to announce itself: "I am not a bomb". Honestly, do we want or expect our police and army to believe that? Some years ago, in similar though less dramatic circumstances, an agreement was reached with the Metropolitan Police to minimise security concerns about caches in a small area of London. The very first time it was tested the agreement failed because the officers involved hadn't been briefed on the agreement; indeed, had never heard of geocaching. I suggest that both history and logic tell us that the proposed rule will have no effect whatever except, as usual with new laws, to hurt the innocent more than the guilty by imposing yet more conditions that will only be obeyed and used by the innocent.

 

The OP asks for suggestions on how to improve the wording of the proposed rule. That's something of a leading question as it assumes that a rule is required. Chief Inspector Hunter also said: "But in placing the caches, what I would say is, please apply some common sense to where you put them" [1]. Amen to that. The solution to this problem is common sense and education. I don't want to single out the owner of the cache in question but, honestly, who would agree that under a planter 2m from the door of a cafe in a busy town centre is an appropriate place for a cache? I've done many urban caches and it's possible to hide them and retrieve them without arousing suspicion. It's also possible to hide and retrieve them and look very suspicious indeed. There are placers who think that it's entertaining to hide an urban cache and make it very difficult to find because there are many hiding places and the hint is inadequate or absent.

 

I know I'm not the first to say this but the problem with urban caches isn't the container it's the hunt. Unless the hiding place is immediately obvious then anyone will appear suspicious while they search for the cache. "Use stealth" is synonymous with "I've put this cache in a really inappropriate place"; it is this mentality which needs to be challenged. Urban cache owners need to ask themselves "how will it look to the people in that office when cachers peer around this bench or under this railing?" Education is the key here, not another rule. But if there must be a rule then it needs to convey this paragraph and require a hint that easily and unambiguously reveals the cache location so that the seeker can quickly retrieve the cache and be on his/her way. Challenging hides should be left for more appropriate locations.

 

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14039229

Sorry for terse msg, injured hand impedes typing.

 

I am on the committee of opencaching.org.uk. AFAIK none of us were contacted despite being mentioned explicitly. Despite that, I am in principle of having a single point for negotiation, and think GAGB are best placed to do it.

 

However, on this subject I am much persuaded by Alan's msg above, and endorse it. This is a personal view and not opencaching.org.uk policy - I need to discuss it with the rest of the committee and with the membership, which won't be done by Friday.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

For the opponents of the GAGB, and I see several who have posted in this topic (so why not declare that fact up front, so people can be full informed. It's not a hidden view is it?) here is the actual wording I've asked Cache Owners who I've applied the "New Guideline" to

 

This cache meets the Urban Placement Guidelines

 

The information on who the person involved in the Wetherby Incident was, who his employer is, and what he was charged with. Were supplied to the Reviewers/GAGB Committee in a confidential communication. If the person wishes to reveal some or all of that information, or provides permission for the Reviewers/GAGB Committee to do so. We will immediately make that information public!

 

We have been extremely lucky in the UK, that we have avoided major restrictions placed on our hobby

 

Manchester Airport Exclusion Zone, hold tightly to the Airport Boundary. Because the person tasked to set it, was a Geocacher and persuaded his Superiors that a wider Exclusion Zone, was not needed. His Superiors wanted a 2-3 mile Exclusion Zone around the Airport as measured from the Airport Boundary.

 

Geocacher gets reported to the Police, due to his behaviour being suspicious. By a Member of The Airport Watch Scheme. Sounds fine, he's near a Airport so there is a possibility of triggering such a event. This person was Challenged by Police at the cache location.

 

Only the cache location was 20 Miles away from the Airport, but under the flight path! The Police made contact and requested that the cache was removed. They also suggested at that time, that all caches under "Flight Paths" be removed! In the case of the Flight Path it is a Dog Leg, not a straight Line. Now move that forward, and the Police "require all caches" under Flight Paths Removed. What affect would that have? Just think how heavily populated the sky's over and surrounding London alone are with Flight Paths! At a stroke a large area is put out of bounds to Geocaching.

 

How much "Non Urban Areas" is under Flight Paths. Manchester Airport alone, has "Flight Paths" which avoid the majority of Population areas in and out of the Airport.

 

Albert Docks Liverpool. A Geocacher searching for the cache, has Security Guards rush up to him, shouting "Put the Detonator Down"! They did this after watching him on CCTV.

 

After the Wetherby Incident, Groundspeak instructed that a Cache be Archived, after contact was made with them. Expressing major concerns about Security Risks and the Impact any Security Alert would have in the area. That's one of the Ripples being felt after Wetherby, and that location was 200+ miles away.

 

I've been in direct communications with two separate Police Forces, who made contact after the Wetherby Incident. Neither being the Yorkshire Police. More Ripples being felt. I've already seen a comment about the Royal Parks Banning Geocaching on Security Grounds. That is the sort of attitude we have to turn around, if a simple Guideline helps to do that, then that is in our best interest.

 

Someone has quoted the Inspector on the BBC Interview, I can tell you, in the interview he was referring to wishing to see something applied that is the same as the Met Agreement. Why do I know this, because it was raised in a conversation with the Journalist before both both interviews took place.I got interviewed in Manchester (in the BBC Centre Car Park) at midday, the Inspector was interviewed in the afternoon. The interviewer would have had a "Off Camera" discussion first about the questions going to be asked and background information. For those who don't know the Met Agreement (which covers the Governments Security Zone in London), each cache owner has to supply a photograph of the container, a written description of how it is hidden, and attached to this is a map showing the location. The article was balanced, what you don't see is the twenty minutes on the cutting floor from the On Film Interview I gave, so how much of the Interview with the Inspector was cut? Did he actually have stronger suggestions, that he would like to see applied?

 

So what is the lesser of 2 evils, applying the Advice given by the ACPO? Or applying what the Inspector in the Yorkshire Force, would like to see apply?

 

The GAGB after consulting the ACPO and discussing the advice given with the Reviewers, created a simple Guideline. If any one and this is aimed at the Anti GAGB Commentators, believe they can do better! Then step up and take part in all the negotiations that will take place. I don't mean the GAGB-Community ones. I mean the GAGB-Police Forces-ACPO ones. Take time off work to negotiate with them, attend meetings with them.

 

The GAGB may not be perfect! But at least they are willing to work to protect YOUR HOBBY! Can you actually say the same?

 

Here is being completely open, when I offered to do the On Camera Interview, the offer was made because no cacher local to Wetherby was wiling to do so in the time frame needed, despite the Journalist making a public request for someone to do so. Why? Possibly because they did not want to be identified as a Geocacher in the area. So i offered so that the article would at least have the UK Communities side. At the time, I was not aware that the BBC would be covering my travel expenses. On the day of the interview, I got a phone call asking me to go to BBC Manchester, at 09:00. I arrived at BBC Manchester at around 12:00. I spent over 20 minutes doing the on camera interview, and then drove home. A trip of 124 miles. I'd already offered to attend discussions with local Yorkshire cachers and the Yorkshire Police, that would have been out of my own pocket. And would have involved travelling over 200 miles. So if I'm prepared to give up my time and cover all my own costs to protect Geocaching in the UK, are the detractors prepared to do the same? Or are they just going to sit at their computers and be totally negative!

 

Lets see people add their Names to a list of people, willing to give up their Time and at their own expense to aid in dealing with the negotiations?

 

So I'll start

 

Dave Palmer-Deceangi-Mancunain Pyrocacher

 

Anyone else?

 

Deci

Link to comment
here is the actual wording I've asked Cache Owners who I've applied the "New Guideline" to

 

This cache meets the Urban Placement Guidelines

 

That's a welcome modification from the original requirement stated at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=277663 and elsewhere (e.g. http://secaching.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352) though it remains, as I examined above, unnecessary.

 

My views on GAGB are well known and, for the purpose of this thread, irrelevant.

 

It does rather sound as though Groundspeak, as usual, has made up its mind and this thread is therefore somewhat academic.

 

Edited to add: I should say that I responded to this consultation only because my views were requested. Whatever rule GAGB and Groundspeak impose will no effect on me because I'm not a member of GAGB and don't intend to place urban caches nor, if I did, to list them on Groundspeak. I would ask, though, that if a decision has already been made then please don't encourage me to spend time replying to a "consultation".

Edited by Alan White
Link to comment

For the opponents of the GAGB, and I see several who have posted in this topic (so why not declare that fact up front, so people can be full informed. It's not a hidden view is it?) here is the actual wording I've asked Cache Owners who I've applied the "New Guideline" to

 

This cache meets the Urban Placement Guidelines

 

The information on who the person involved in the Wetherby Incident was, who his employer is, and what he was charged with. Were supplied to the Reviewers/GAGB Committee in a confidential communication. If the person wishes to reveal some or all of that information, or provides permission for the Reviewers/GAGB Committee to do so. We will immediately make that information public!

 

We have been extremely lucky in the UK, that we have avoided major restrictions placed on our hobby

 

Manchester Airport Exclusion Zone, hold tightly to the Airport Boundary. Because the person tasked to set it, was a Geocacher and persuaded his Superiors that a wider Exclusion Zone, was not needed. His Superiors wanted a 2-3 mile Exclusion Zone around the Airport as measured from the Airport Boundary.

 

Geocacher gets reported to the Police, due to his behaviour being suspicious. By a Member of The Airport Watch Scheme. Sounds fine, he's near a Airport so there is a possibility of triggering such a event. This person was Challenged by Police at the cache location.

 

Only the cache location was 20 Miles away from the Airport, but under the flight path! The Police made contact and requested that the cache was removed. They also suggested at that time, that all caches under "Flight Paths" be removed! In the case of the Flight Path it is a Dog Leg, not a straight Line. Now move that forward, and the Police "require all caches" under Flight Paths Removed. What affect would that have? Just think how heavily populated the sky's over and surrounding London alone are with Flight Paths! At a stroke a large area is put out of bounds to Geocaching.

 

How much "Non Urban Areas" is under Flight Paths. Manchester Airport alone, has "Flight Paths" which avoid the majority of Population areas in and out of the Airport.

 

Albert Docks Liverpool. A Geocacher searching for the cache, has Security Guards rush up to him, shouting "Put the Detonator Down"! They did this after watching him on CCTV.

 

After the Wetherby Incident, Groundspeak instructed that a Cache be Archived, after contact was made with them. Expressing major concerns about Security Risks and the Impact any Security Alert would have in the area. That's one of the Ripples being felt after Wetherby, and that location was 200+ miles away.

 

I've been in direct communications with two separate Police Forces, who made contact after the Wetherby Incident. Neither being the Yorkshire Police. More Ripples being felt. I've already seen a comment about the Royal Parks Banning Geocaching on Security Grounds. That is the sort of attitude we have to turn around, if a simple Guideline helps to do that, then that is in our best interest.

 

Someone has quoted the Inspector on the BBC Interview, I can tell you, in the interview he was referring to wishing to see something applied that is the same as the Met Agreement. Why do I know this, because it was raised in a conversation with the Journalist before both both interviews took place.I got interviewed in Manchester (in the BBC Centre Car Park) at midday, the Inspector was interviewed in the afternoon. The interviewer would have had a "Off Camera" discussion first about the questions going to be asked and background information. For those who don't know the Met Agreement (which covers the Governments Security Zone in London), each cache owner has to supply a photograph of the container, a written description of how it is hidden, and attached to this is a map showing the location. The article was balanced, what you don't see is the twenty minutes on the cutting floor from the On Film Interview I gave, so how much of the Interview with the Inspector was cut? Did he actually have stronger suggestions, that he would like to see applied?

 

So what is the lesser of 2 evils, applying the Advice given by the ACPO? Or applying what the Inspector in the Yorkshire Force, would like to see apply?

 

The GAGB after consulting the ACPO and discussing the advice given with the Reviewers, created a simple Guideline. If any one and this is aimed at the Anti GAGB Commentators, believe they can do better! Then step up and take part in all the negotiations that will take place. I don't mean the GAGB-Community ones. I mean the GAGB-Police Forces-ACPO ones. Take time off work to negotiate with them, attend meetings with them.

 

The GAGB may not be perfect! But at least they are willing to work to protect YOUR HOBBY! Can you actually say the same?

 

Here is being completely open, when I offered to do the On Camera Interview, the offer was made because no cacher local to Wetherby was wiling to do so in the time frame needed, despite the Journalist making a public request for someone to do so. Why? Possibly because they did not want to be identified as a Geocacher in the area. So i offered so that the article would at least have the UK Communities side. At the time, I was not aware that the BBC would be covering my travel expenses. On the day of the interview, I got a phone call asking me to go to BBC Manchester, at 09:00. I arrived at BBC Manchester at around 12:00. I spent over 20 minutes doing the on camera interview, and then drove home. A trip of 124 miles. I'd already offered to attend discussions with local Yorkshire cachers and the Yorkshire Police, that would have been out of my own pocket. And would have involved travelling over 200 miles. So if I'm prepared to give up my time and cover all my own costs to protect Geocaching in the UK, are the detractors prepared to do the same? Or are they just going to sit at their computers and be totally negative!

 

Lets see people add their Names to a list of people, willing to give up their Time and at their own expense to aid in dealing with the negotiations?

 

So I'll start

 

Dave Palmer-Deceangi-Mancunain Pyrocacher

 

Anyone else?

 

Deci

 

So, I think most of us that see the GAGB as somewhat irrelevant have posted suggestions in this thread and kept those posts in the spirit of consultation with suggestions. For this we get a further lecture from a reviewer about how little we do for the hobby and how negative we are.

 

Why oh why is it that whenever a view is expressed that is contrary to that of an organisation, do we who oppose it get labeled as negative? Some of us believe that the GAGB has had a negative effect on caching. This thread was about consultation on the guideline and nothing to do with anti GAGB sentiments. I think most of us managed to keep to that in this thread.

 

If I started a caching organisation that had guidelines that you disagreed with, entered into agreements with land owners that you disagreed with, and generally went around claiming to represent you, would you not make some noise in opposition to it?

 

So far the reviewer from GC is the one that appeared in the news, the general public has heard diddly squat from 'our elected reps'. The other listing sites have heard nothing from 'our elected reps'. This was fine when the thread was a GC thread stating that GC had adopted the GAGB guideline but now that the GAGB are 'consulting' they really mean they are talking to the one site they feel they have any influence with. They ignore the rest. If they really want to represent us then they should be out there posting on all the listing sites. These people stood up to take the job, the put their hand up for it. They HAVE to take the rough with the smooth. When they do nothing they should expect criticism for it, especially from those that feel they are a waste of time. When the main listing site reviewers and GAGB get together and dream up new rules that do not solve the issue but just serve to make life more difficult for the cacher then can you really be surprised that some of us feel they are not doing the job they should be doing?

 

The other hobbies I have all have associations that fight for the members and the hobbies. They FIGHT to improve access, they FIGHT to have laws changed, they EDUCATE their members on how to play nice with the other groups that oppose those hobbies. They PUBLICISE the good things that are done. What they don't do is come up with rules. Yes they have guidelines on how to behave in confrontations, but nearly all of it is education and promoting the good side of the hobby.

 

Seriously, if an association wants to REALLY represent and work for cachers then it should be out their making a noise. They should be shouting to the non cachers about CITO, they should be fighting for access to closed off areas, educating the cachers on good caching, working with other organisations that have all these same access issues. Instead, they have an out of date database, a forum that pretty much replicates the stuff found here, the vast majority of cachers have never heard of them, and they hide in the shadows when they actually get an opportunity to stand up and be recognised. Is it any wonder I have zero respect for them?

Link to comment

I'd give up time and money for the hobby. I have done so way back when. I will not join the GAGB, and all I see them as is the keeper of the "agreements.". On this topic, as well as many others, the GAGB is irrelevant. It's the cachers who are relevant here, not even the reviewers... No offence guys, but other sites and even unlisted caches can cause this problem. It's for each and ever cacher to stop and think before playing either side of the game.

 

TBH I'd rather be arrested on suspicion of terrorism than paedophilia... There are lots if caches next to schools. Suspicion of either is awful... But proof of the former is needed to ruin most people's lives... Only suspicion of the latter can do it.

 

So... We make new rules for hiders, and seekers... And a visitor or first timer who's just installed an app causes a security alert. We can't "win" here.

 

Discussion here is seen by a few hundred people, the GAGB guidelines are seen by a few hundred at most... I've not read them since they were HCC rules plus dry stone Walls... Hopefully they've changed a little. When hiding it asks if we've read the (GS) guidelines, we tick the box!

 

So, if this doesnt get added to the GS guidelines, how do we get ALL cachers to be aware of it? That could be key here.

Link to comment

And to be "open" I've had a problem with the GAGB since 2003 and may have caused a few ripples in the association back then. I remember a reviewer being attacked by the GAGB for openly stating that he used GAGB guidelines to approve caches. Now it seems it's the done thing. The reviewers, or at least a couple of them, jump to the defence of the GAGB all the time... as GS representatives. So is the GAGB now the de facto rule maker for the UK in GS's eyes? If not can I suggest that defence of GAGB comes from non "official" accounts for clarity?

 

Of course we are fortunate that there is a significantly larger number of volunteers to be reviewers than there were candidates for "election" to the GAGB committee.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

I like drsolly's suggestions as they clear up a lot of the questions that have been asked on other threads about the urban guideline. I have a cache that would be disallowed if we went on those guidelines as it's on the town common, however I have written permission from the Town Council to place it there. It wouldn't "work" in its hidey hole if it were a micro. I'll suggest the exception of "Unless written permission is obtained from the relevant authority". Or something like that... :)

 

This is my suggestion too. I think there will be exceptions; e.g. one of my favourite local caches is a large (non-transparent) box hidden inside a public building. It has full permission; the people working in that building know it is there, there is no danger of a bomb scare.

 

Now I also agree with Alan White, that such guidelines will probably not actually help. I also agree with others that urban caches should have clear hints - I hate having to do a prolonged search in urban areas; as that is what causes suspicion. If there is a good hint and I can find it quickly, I am much less likely to cause an incident.

 

But our culture requires action, so I think some sort of new urban caching policy is required.

Link to comment

Having read the opening post from the GAGB Committee I was pleased to see that they appear to have recognised that perhaps their initial approach to this debate was flawed, albeit well intended.

 

What Alan White said in his original post was very well put. However as he points out, if a decision has already been made,and is being implemented, what point is their on any consultation, by GAGB or anyone else?

 

So, could someone please make it clear to the rest of us mere Groundspeak paying customers WHO is making the rules!

 

If the UK's senior (volunteer) reviewer, Deceangi, is already "applying" a new 'guideline' requiring the (amended) wording (and therefore the container requirements)then presumably this is Groundspeak's official position on the matter and, as far as Groundspeak is concerned, NO further discussion is required if you wish to have geocaches published by Groundspeak's UK (volunteer)Reviewers?

 

Simples! :ph34r:

Link to comment

For what it's worth, it is possible to support the GAGB and give your own time to the sport and still disagree with the new guideline as it was originally put to us. They're not mutually exclusive!

 

Being a member of the GAGB does not mean agreeing with everything they do - that's what discussion and consultation are for...

Link to comment

Urban means, where there are houses.

 

So, the rule would be:

 

In places where there is a house within 25 meters, the largest cache that may be placed is a 35mm micro or a keysafe, and if the cache is not a nano, then it must have its identification on the outside.

 

So industrial units and office blocks are fair game then?

 

You need to substitute "houses" with "buildings". But then you'll need to rely on a judgement call and info to the reviewer to differentiate buildings like barns, farmhouses, bus shelters, ad inf in rural areas ................

 

How about 'inhabited buildings'?

Edited by thehalibutkid
Link to comment

By making the rule that all urban caches content must be visible, so all urban caches must be transparent. So effectivly this is banning Urban Ammo boxes, I know there are quite a few around. Ammo Boxes are in demise as it is this would add to the problem of those who want to place ammo boxes. It would be better just to insist that all ammo boxes are correctly labled and have better communicate with the police.

Link to comment

I have just come to the conclusion that we don't need new guidelines we need education

... A new cache placed today near us.... called ..... Are you being watched??? It is in the middle of a housing estate with at least 9 houses overlooking GZ the CO has given it a D3 for stealth required .. We pulled up, reversed the car into the cul de sac and saw at least two people come to the window and someone gardening watched us closely as we drove up. The houses in question are in what I would say is neighbourhood watch central nothing moves without being noted....We didn't even get out of the car. The cache description finished with "This cache meets the GAGB urban placement urban guidelines."

I don't totally blame the CO... My idea of what happened... Cache is submitted .. refused because of new guideline.. CO reads new guideline and adds the "this cache meets...." line to the description.. cache re-submitted and published because it now meets the guidelines... The CO has no idea why this new guideline has been added but his nano is already OK anyway.and needs no change

Only a minority of cachers read the forums and lots know nothing about the bomb scare so they will just moan about 'more rules' and continue to place caches in unsuitable locations and just add the 'magic' phrase to get the caches past review

 

 

Another new cache today, in the same area, was temped by a reviewer for being too close to a playground

Link to comment

I have just come to the conclusion that we don't need new guidelines we need education

... A new cache placed today near us.... called ..... Are you being watched??? It is in the middle of a housing estate with at least 9 houses overlooking GZ the CO has given it a D3 for stealth required .. We pulled up, reversed the car into the cul de sac and saw at least two people come to the window and someone gardening watched us closely as we drove up. The houses in question are in what I would say is neighbourhood watch central nothing moves without being noted....We didn't even get out of the car. The cache description finished with "This cache meets the GAGB urban placement urban guidelines."

I don't totally blame the CO... My idea of what happened... Cache is submitted .. refused because of new guideline.. CO reads new guideline and adds the "this cache meets...." line to the description.. cache re-submitted and published because it now meets the guidelines... The CO has no idea why this new guideline has been added but his nano is already OK anyway.and needs no change

Only a minority of cachers read the forums and lots know nothing about the bomb scare so they will just moan about 'more rules' and continue to place caches in unsuitable locations and just add the 'magic' phrase to get the caches past review

 

 

Another new cache today, in the same area, was temped by a reviewer for being too close to a playground

Education education education... It IS the answer... And as this proves, the guidline is ineffective.

Link to comment

Please do not take the following as an attack on anybody, it is intended to be purely constructive.

 

As a reviewer, I have struggled with the new guideline, mainly due to it's fuzziness over 'urban' and that fact it applies to nanos which as fuzzybears stated just means I ask people to put some words on a cache page. :huh:

 

I'm not going to propose size, labelling and 'see-insideability' limits, instead I propose an ethos to be followed when deciding the if a ruling is required and if so what it should be.

 

I want an arrangement that will actually help minimise the disruption scares cause to both the public and our hobby.

 

I like the idea of clear hints, this will help to minimise 'suspicious behaviour'. For this I will have to be trusted to be able to judge clear from unclear. :blink:

 

I need to have a clear definition of what caches and what locations are included. This is never going to be black and white, but the grey needs to be minimised.

 

Having said all of that, the new guideline has succeeded in one thing which was an aim at the outset. It minimised the knee-jerk reactions from landowner/managers who could have removed their permission when the news articles flooded across the country. For this, we should all thank the those who were involved in the guideline. It's now time to reflect on it and move it forward into something that the majority are comfortable with.

 

Andy

Red Duster

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Link to comment

What AW said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ rocks! Where do I sign? :)

 

Jon

Yeah... Well argued, and factually good... Would get my vote.

 

For a while I worked at Manchester airport. One driver at a taxi firm there raped a woman passenger. Business for the rest of them died for weeks. Putting "Not a rapist" on the cars wouldn't have helped...

 

Geocache means nothing to Joe Bloggs. Contents harmless is hard for a CO to guarantee unless they fist after every find. Writing "BOMB" onit would be more effective as nobody would take that seriously.

 

This.

 

Typical English response here, make a rule out of an exception. How come the US manages to continue NOT making new rules every time there is a bomb scare? They have plenty more of these occur than in the UK.

 

---

 

Just to add an adendum to my point - look at child protection legislation... no matter how much they introduce and no matter how many doctors, case workers, church and police they have involved, they still can't protect all children. Even after Victoria Climbie, we still have Baby P's.

 

And who was it who recognised the abuse of Victoria Climbie and did something about it in the end? A taxi driver - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9#Death_and_trial

 

Legislation and rules does not make for smarter people - possibly makes for dumber people due to the fact they rely on the letter of the law and not common sense.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

A few observations on the Wetheby incident and its consequences...

 

1) I found it quite surpising that the BBC featured geocaching on the One Show on a Friday, but a few days later were reporting that a cafe owner knew nothing of geocaching, the local police and bomb squad knew nothing of geocaching, and the cafe owner was later complaining about her loss of earnings when the joint over-reactions in Wetherby closed off a street. And there was I concerned that all the recent publicity over geocaching would lead to more people realising what I was doing when on the hunt!

 

2) I am also a member of the Royal Photographic Society. As has been said, both police officers and private security staff can exceed their authority in attempting to prevent you taking photographs in public places. The RPS have issued a small card listing your legal rights to help photographers justify their right to use a camera in public. Perhaps we need a similar card to justify our legal right to look for caches?

 

3) I recently found a cache hidden by a scout group near a local scout camp. Some cachers have already stated they felt uncomfortable looking for a cache near a scout camp.

 

4) If the authorities seek to ban caches under flight paths, then a study of the civil aviation flight corridors across the UK shows that there will be very few areas that could have caches!

 

Chris

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...