Consultation on GAGB Urban guideline

[+Icenians]

 

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

 

Or car parks!

 

This really is all getting just a little beyond the ridiculous.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Icenians

[+PopUpPirate]

Many thanks for the updated (new) post, Dave Womble Good to hear that someone who has a say is willing to listen! So, thanks to the GAGB too.

 

As many have said, the hunt is the problem, so either lets avoid rule creep altogether and leave it as it is with no limitations, or just admit that urban caching is a no-no... regardless of container size.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

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?

 

I imagine an FOIA request would do the trick.

[+FuzzyBears]

Just another idea to add to the mix

Get Groundspeak to add a section in the descriptions for the setter to say why they placed the cache and make it compulsory .. If it's because of a view/nice church/etc. then a picture would have to be added to the gallery to prove it ... This would stop the 'because I can' caches and help cachers to decide if they want to visit a cache. It would also raise the quality of hides because setters would have to 'sell' the cache to visitors. It would not make a lot of difference to the review process as setters would be doing a lot of the work in having to give more details of the hide area. Cachers might then be more forthcoming in their logs in thanking the setter for bring them to this great place or saying things like "great picture of the church pity you can't see it from the cache location" again giving more information to future visitors

 

Rules /guidelines don't work, look at Church micros. the prove permission rule came in .. CMs moved out of churches... Sidetracked moved away from stations... Urban caches will become all nanos hidden up back lanes

Make the setter prove the cache's worth before it is published and more thought would go into their placement

 

This would work world wide and hopefully slow down the rise of micros thrown in a hedge... nanos on a road sign

& caches obviously placed without permission

How would this help with the current problem? It would make setters think more about why the cache is placed where it is and what effect it may have on it's location

Move the local/UK guidelines list to Groundspeak and add them to the world rules Then when you log in it would give you ALL the guidelines/rules for your area(easy enough to do as they know where we live) but I think they should include a reason why they were added.The local reviewers could maintain these lists and no doubt still get help from local organisation/cachers

As I said just an idea. At the moment the reviewers hands are tied because if the cache is within guidelines it has to be published... Make them like book publishers and then they could use their vast knowledge to weed out the ones that should never have been submitted instead of editors making sure setters have crossed their eyes and dotted their Ts (it's late)

[nobby.nobbs]

On a side point and possibly help in a way.

 

Clearly define a couple of questions, urban: built up area, anywhere that isn't countryside basically.

is the cache overlooked by property ?

 

to be totally honest i would love both of these to be options that were compulsory to have.

then have the option to not include them in a pq. my major problem in life sorted. i want to do rural countryside caches and not have my pq's full of urban, overlooked caches.

 

could be that i'm not alone. and that people when looking at these two fields to be ticked start to think, is this cache really worthwhile?

[Alan White]

Clearly define a couple of questions, urban: built up area, anywhere that isn't countryside basically.

is the cache overlooked by property ?

 

to be totally honest i would love both of these to be options that were compulsory to have.

then have the option to not include them in a pq. my major problem in life sorted. i want to do rural countryside caches and not have my pq's full of urban, overlooked caches.

I like the idea, though possibly simply because we have similar tastes in caches; I'm not in favour of compulsion.

 

Your post reinforces one of the problems with the proposal. Just as it's the hunt not the container which is the issue, so it is that it's not urban but visibility. There are many caches (our own GCH1JR being a good example) which could be classed as urban but are not overlooked and therefore represent no more of a security concern than a cache in the middle of nowhere. Conversely, a cache in the countryside but close to and overlooked by the only building within miles may well be an issue. For these reasons I support drsolly's proposal, as modified.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Alan White's post earlier makes a lot of sense to me; well done.

It's critical, however, that we identify exactly what the offence is that you're charged with when arrested. Without that information any guidance / guidelines / rules can't really be supported.

 

Hopefully, rather than coming up with useless rules the GAGB will be successful in educating the authorities and revealing that (like them or not) urban caches are here in big numbers and can't be made to go away.

 

So rather than attempting the impossible task of making them all unambiguously and immediately identifiable as geocaches (even to people who've never heard of the pastime), the GAGB will ensure that there are more police officers and members of the public who can spot that a "suspect package" is highly likely to be a geocache and the "suspicious person" a geocacher.

 

On top of that, an idea might be for cachers to post a Needs Archived cache note for caches where they're being regarded suspiciously when seeking. Then the cache can be got rid of before it causes trouble, or the CO can verify that the cache is safe to search for and amend the cache description to make this clear.

[Alan White]

It's critical, however, that we identify exactly what the offence is that you're charged with when arrested.

I don't see that that's going to be possible. I'm not a lawyer but I'm reasonably sure that there isn't an offence of "geocaching". Actually, I doubt that the word "geocaching" even appears in statute. However, as I say in my original post (thanks for the kind words), the police and local councils have, thanks to the explosion (no pun intended) of new laws in recent years, a vast array of laws to choose from, from littering through public order to acts preparatory to terrorism. Additionally, if when challenged a cacher then doesn't cooperate and give a good account of himself then further laws such as obstructing the police or wasting police time could be used. I suggest that we don't need to know what the offence at Wetherby was in order to try to prevent a recurrence.

 

On top of that, an idea might be for cachers to post a Needs Archived cache note for caches where they're being regarded suspiciously when seeking. Then the cache can be got rid of before it causes trouble, or the CO can verify that the cache is safe to search for and amend the cache description to make this clear.

Now that would ban most urban caches .

[+PopUpPirate]

Urban = location where hunting for a cache could be considered suspicious

[+Happy Humphrey]

I don't see that that's going to be possible. I'm not a lawyer but I'm reasonably sure that there isn't an offence of "geocaching". Actually, I doubt that the word "geocaching" even appears in statute. However, as I say in my original post (thanks for the kind words), the police and local councils have, thanks to the explosion (no pun intended) of new laws in recent years, a vast array of laws to choose from, from littering through public order to acts preparatory to terrorism. Additionally, if when challenged a cacher then doesn't cooperate and give a good account of himself then further laws such as obstructing the police or wasting police time could be used. I suggest that we don't need to know what the offence at Wetherby was in order to try to prevent a recurrence.

Possibly you're correct. But if so, the attempt to protect cachers from arrest is misdirected. After all, had the miscreant simply cooperated and admitted to geocaching then been free to go, we wouldn't have to discuss the serious ramifications of being caught caching. The fact that the victim has had his career ruined by the incident has been mentioned on several occasions, and to me is the saddest part of this sorry episode and the one that we should be concentrating on.

 

Now that would ban most urban caches .

I've felt fairly comfortable searching for most urban caches but there are clearly a number where I'd be so uncomfortable as to abandon the search before starting. That's the type I was thinking of.

[+NattyBooshka]

I think the issue with arrest was more to do with either resisting or being deliberately misleading when approached. I would be pleased to be proven wrong, because then I may be able to get that pro bono help via my tutor. My rule of thumb is to always be honest with anyone looking vaguely official... That way I can't be preventing the authorities from doing their job efficiently. In the weatherby situation, arrest may well have been unavoidable. I think the police did what they had to very well... I wouldn't like to face a suspect package. Once arrested you have to tell all, but it's best to do so before if you're given the opportunity. It's interesting that the police had no charge to bring against the CO, so I'm of the belief that the seeker acted recklessly... Again I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

[Alan White]

Possibly you're correct. But if so, the attempt to protect cachers from arrest is misdirected.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that one of the objectives of the rule is to protect cachers from arrest. It seems to me that the principal purpose of the rule is to demonstrate to the police that "we're doing something". The fact that Groundspeak's own guidelines already cover all the issues, and that the problem was caused by those guidelines not being followed, seems to have been overlooked.

 

Interestingly, I've just received a notification on GC2YJC0. If that's as a result of the recent discussion then it's having the right effect. That's education in action.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Alan White

[+NattyBooshka]

Interestingly, I've just received a notification on GC2YJC0. If that's as a result of the recent discussion then it's having the right effect. That's education in action.

Looks like it... Fair play to the CO, whether because of this or finders comments.

[Neath Worthies]

Interestingly, I've just received a notification on GC2YJC0. If that's as a result of the recent discussion then it's having the right effect. That's education in action.

Looks like it... Fair play to the CO, whether because of this or finders comments.

But surely the warehouse owner whose land the cache is on would have informed their security guards that permission had been granted and to expect geocachers nosing about?