Jump to content

Updated "Urban" guideline


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Oh goody! New guidance that all non GAGB members will have to follow :)

 

Do we still have to advertise something we don't believe in?

 

What's this long winded "guideline" give us that the Groundspeak guideline doesn't?

Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Oh goody! New guidance that all non GAGB members will have to follow :)

 

Do we still have to advertise something we don't believe in?

 

What's this long winded "guideline" give us that the Groundspeak guideline doesn't?

No Comment as every cache set in the last few years has agreed to the GAGB Guidelines

 

You haven't had to since Deci posted on this forum the new wording

 

It has given the ACPO quickly the response they required... It has showed the outside world we care enough to ADD a new rule..... and to cachers in general No real change other than the addition of a line of text to the cache page and a ref No to cache boxes... A small price to pay to continue caching without too much trouble

 

Well done to the GAGB and the reviewers for jumping on this before the police and media ran away with it causing long term damage to caching in the UK ... It will make people think about where they place a cache an hopefully in the long term improve all caches

Edited by fuzzybears
Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Who is the GAGB? why should anyone listen to you? That being said, I think it's a good idea.

Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Oh goody! New guidance that all non GAGB members will have to follow :)

 

Do we still have to advertise something we don't believe in?

 

What's this long winded "guideline" give us that the Groundspeak guideline doesn't?

.... and to cachers in general No real change other than the addition of a line of text to the cache page and a ref No to cache boxes...

 

 

I do believe that requirement is missing from the new guideline :)

 

All in all, it's common sense, and easily achievable. Thanks Dave and all concerned :)

Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

 

Absolutely brilliant. Really like the sound of the new guideline and I think it shows that the GAGB have listened to some of the comments posted in the consultation to try and improve the original idea. I can see there may be a few problems with the "clear and unambiguous hint" when it comes to multicaches and puzzles in "overlooked" locations as sometimes it will be oh so easy to give away the location without needing to solve the puzzle/multi, however I'm sure it's possible to be clear and slightly cryptic at the same time! :)

 

Good work, guys!

Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

Oh goody! New guidance that all non GAGB members will have to follow :)

 

Do we still have to advertise something we don't believe in?

 

What's this long winded "guideline" give us that the Groundspeak guideline doesn't?

No Comment as every cache set in the last few years has agreed to the GAGB Guidelines

 

You haven't had to since Deci posted on this forum the new wording

 

It has given the ACPO quickly the response they required... It has showed the outside world we care enough to ADD a new rule..... and to cachers in general No real change other than the addition of a line of text to the cache page and a ref No to cache boxes... A small price to pay to continue caching without too much trouble

 

Well done to the GAGB and the reviewers for jumping on this before the police and media ran away with it causing long term damage to caching in the UK ... It will make people think about where they place a cache an hopefully in the long term improve all caches

Haha... Yeah... In the last few years all caches have had to PRETEND to obey the rules if the GAGB. How refreshing that you actually refer to it as a new rule though... Well done.

 

Of course for those of us in the know, it's obvious that caches have always been placed with scant regard to any of he GS or GAGB rules... Indeed I've gone urban in the last couple of days... And finding new caches, claiming to abide by the new rules... How amusing that they don't... And how predictable?

 

After a week or so, we've made a simple short unclear guideline longer... And less clear in my mind. Overlooked by people? I wouldn't hide a cache with anyone looking... So none of mine can be "urban" then eh?

 

I must congratulate the "elected" committee though on selective listening and actually coming up with something.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

Following consultation, the GAGB committee have reviewed the comments and suggestions, and have decided to modify the "Urban" guideline as shown below. One of these changes is to move away from defining "Urban" to focussing on overlooked locations and where finders could be considered suspicious.

 

We are working with ACPO to provide the Police with a process for reviewing suspicious packages which will include online access, mapping tools and ideally cache reference numbers to speed this process.

 

New guideline follows:

 

Caches should be hidden so as to minimise the chance of security alerts, particularly where there is a liklihood of finders being considered suspicious for example where a cache is overlooked by houses / offices / shops / people.

 

When a cache is placed in an overlooked location, the cache owner should help finders avoid being considered suspicious by offering a clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly.

 

Cache owners should mark caches externally with the relevant listing site reference (eg GCxxxxxx, OXxxxxxx, or OCxxxxx) wherever the cache is big enough for this to be written externally. This will offer the Police a better way to identify a suspect package as a geocache.

 

Dave

GAGB Chairman

 

I stand by my previous comments about the GAGB... however it does look as though common sense has prevailed to a stronger degree here - and I see it for what it is - something 'seen to be done' for the "OMG something must be done!!!!" brigade, and contientious geocachers can carry on as normal.

 

However I have done some excellent caches in the past that are very popular and clever that are urban that wouldn't be able to exist if they had to clearly identify themselves (even with just a GC code). I have 2 or 3 caches myself which are urban and the container/hide type makes it impossible to identify in such a way (that said, without giving the game away, the container types are not the types that could conceal trinkets, let alone bomb material. As such not even a Keystone Kop would be able to get away with claiming they mistook them for a bomb).

Link to comment

I think that the term overlooked needs better clarification. Does passing cars constitute being overlooked? I have hidden some of my caches on nature reserves and there is no telling where a twitcher may be lurking with his/her telephoto lens.

 

All in all the rule seems to be just and application of common sense. The people who care enough about geocaching will do this anyway and the folks who just want to get a cache published and move on will most probably never even encounter the GAGB let allow these guidelines.

Link to comment

It's great that a guideline or rule ( however you wish to term it) has been written to try and resolve an issue that has arisen.

Well done to all that have worked hard at this.

 

Yes there will always be those people that through ignorance or pettyness decide to lie when they place a cache. They have always plagued our hobby especially those who take great pleasure in it and then standing on their hobby horse.

 

There will be arguments of civil liberties, limited authority of elected representatives, and all the normal witterings of those who then refuse to actually do anything other than whine on forum pages. Just like the anarchists who refuse to vote in general elections and then moan about their government.

 

There may not be many that vote for the GAGB, their choice when it is clear that the reviewers refer to the agreements made and administered by the committee and their members. We do need a group that represents cachers in the UK. America has one, it's called Groundspeak. they have lawyers and so on that will approach the authorities on their behalf. We do not. GS aren't likely to be bothered to actually do very much to keep caching going in this country.

 

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The numbers that vote for the committee may not be large, but chances are it's higher than the numbers who are on this forum.....

Link to comment

It's great that a guideline or rule ( however you wish to term it) has been written to try and resolve an issue that has arisen.

Well done to all that have worked hard at this.

 

Yes there will always be those people that through ignorance or pettyness decide to lie when they place a cache. They have always plagued our hobby especially those who take great pleasure in it and then standing on their hobby horse.

 

There will be arguments of civil liberties, limited authority of elected representatives, and all the normal witterings of those who then refuse to actually do anything other than whine on forum pages. Just like the anarchists who refuse to vote in general elections and then moan about their government.

 

There may not be many that vote for the GAGB, their choice when it is clear that the reviewers refer to the agreements made and administered by the committee and their members. We do need a group that represents cachers in the UK. America has one, it's called Groundspeak. they have lawyers and so on that will approach the authorities on their behalf. We do not. GS aren't likely to be bothered to actually do very much to keep caching going in this country.

 

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The numbers that vote for the committee may not be large, but chances are it's higher than the numbers who are on this forum.....

Quick headcount... there's more than 0 people on his forum.

 

No, we're not special, no, we don't need an extra set of rule makers... All it need take is GS and common sense. With the political climate, throughout my life, it'd be the US that needed extra management.

Link to comment

It's great that a guideline or rule ( however you wish to term it) has been written to try and resolve an issue that has arisen.

Well done to all that have worked hard at this.

 

Yes there will always be those people that through ignorance or pettyness decide to lie when they place a cache. They have always plagued our hobby especially those who take great pleasure in it and then standing on their hobby horse.

 

There will be arguments of civil liberties, limited authority of elected representatives, and all the normal witterings of those who then refuse to actually do anything other than whine on forum pages. Just like the anarchists who refuse to vote in general elections and then moan about their government.

 

There may not be many that vote for the GAGB, their choice when it is clear that the reviewers refer to the agreements made and administered by the committee and their members. We do need a group that represents cachers in the UK. America has one, it's called Groundspeak. they have lawyers and so on that will approach the authorities on their behalf. We do not. GS aren't likely to be bothered to actually do very much to keep caching going in this country.

 

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The numbers that vote for the committee may not be large, but chances are it's higher than the numbers who are on this forum.....

 

Oh please!

 

You just simply don't get it. Nearly everywhere else survives perfectly well without a bunch of busybodies trying to tell us how to play a game that involves hiding a plastic box!!!

 

You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless!

 

Many of us do contribute to the game. We do it by going out and placing caches, we do it by going out and finding caches. What we don't do is sit in judgement claiming a right to speak for all others based on 50 other people casting a ballot.

 

Keeping caching going in this country, just like any other country, is not achieved by doing sweet fanny adams in a committee for 9 years. It's done by going out and placing caches.

 

Just out of interest, why is it that a GAGB guideline is announced here? Do you guys now just openly set the rules for Groundspeak? The GAGB should have announced this on the GAGB site for THIER MEMBERS and let Groundspeak decide what rules they wish to follow.

 

I would like to congradulate the GAGB on missing the point completely and saddling us with yet another stupid rule. As if the fact that the current GS set hadn't got big enough they had to call them a book!

Link to comment

 

You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless!

 

 

I don't think so. It's called "Security theater" and it has a part to play. When there's a hue and cry from either The People or The Media or The Authorities that says Something Must Be Done, then sometimes, the right thing to do is something that's entirely pointless, because it satisfies all parties.

Link to comment

 

You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless!

 

 

I don't think so. It's called "Security theater" and it has a part to play. When there's a hue and cry from either The People or The Media or The Authorities that says Something Must Be Done, then sometimes, the right thing to do is something that's entirely pointless, because it satisfies all parties.

I agree in the most part... but the something pointless should affect nobody in the theatre. Limiting the game in a way that won't help prevent another Weatherby isn't theatre.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

 

You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless!

 

 

I don't think so. It's called "Security theater" and it has a part to play. When there's a hue and cry from either The People or The Media or The Authorities that says Something Must Be Done, then sometimes, the right thing to do is something that's entirely pointless, because it satisfies all parties.

I agree in the most part... but the something pointless should affect nobody in the theatre. Limiting the game in a way that won't help prevent another Weatherby isn't theatre.

 

How is this limiting the game? The only part that isn't already in Groundspeak's own guidelines is the requirement for an unambiguous hint - and you don't need to decrypt the hint if you think it'll spoil things for you.....

Link to comment

 

You miss the point completely, again. We don't need to DO anything and doing something that is pointless is, well, pointless!

 

 

I don't think so. It's called "Security theater" and it has a part to play. When there's a hue and cry from either The People or The Media or The Authorities that says Something Must Be Done, then sometimes, the right thing to do is something that's entirely pointless, because it satisfies all parties.

I agree in the most part... but the something pointless should affect nobody in the theatre. Limiting the game in a way that won't help prevent another Weatherby isn't theatre.

 

How is this limiting the game? The only part that isn't already in Groundspeak's own guidelines is the requirement for an unambiguous hint - and you don't need to decrypt the hint if you think it'll spoil things for you.....

OK... the hint has to be unambiguous. So, if I don't read the hint... how does the new hint help in any way at all? Therefore, there is a requirement for me to read the hint if we are to avoid another weatherby... so the game is limited.

 

The cache needs to have the GC code on it... and with the multisite listed caches, that's a lot of codes! So that's no more camouflage, and no more creative hides... that's limiting the game too.

 

So, whilst the two or three limitations may be insignificant to many... they are still there. In the comparison to security theatre... the theatre doesn't ever weaken the security.

Link to comment

But it's only a GUIDELINE so by definition it's only for guidance and is not mandatory. If I wanted to hide a cache in an "Urban" location (and I don't) I could read the Guideline and decide myself whether or not to abide by it.

 

Or am I being naive?

You can still hide whatever you want, wherever you want. That hasn't changed at all, and never will.

 

However - if you want to list your hide here you have to accept that the reviewers will use their judgement in deciding whether to let you list it on their site! :rolleyes:

 

Your call!

Link to comment

But it's only a GUIDELINE so by definition it's only for guidance and is not mandatory. If I wanted to hide a cache in an "Urban" location (and I don't) I could read the Guideline and decide myself whether or not to abide by it.

 

Or am I being naive?

You can still hide whatever you want, wherever you want. That hasn't changed at all, and never will.

 

However - if you want to list your hide here you have to accept that the reviewers will use their judgement in deciding whether to let you list it on their site! :rolleyes:

 

Your call!

 

Am I being naive? Yes, you most certainly are. The reviewers will apply that as a rule, and not a guideline.

As for keehotee's comment " the reviewers will use their judgement whether to let you list it on their site" That is where things have gone wrong, some of them think it really is THEIR site.

I signed up to GS and agreed to THEIR rules, I did not sign up to GAGB, their rules are purely for their members, unfortunately the reviewers don't see it that way.

Link to comment

I applaud GAGB for listening to the comments on the original guideline and modifying it. Sure, it's not perfect and it's probably not even necessary but drsolly is right: the politics of the situation are such that Something Had To Be Done.

 

The remaining question is whether Groundspeak are now going to adopt this modified version.

Link to comment

 

The cache needs to have the GC code on it... and with the multisite listed caches, that's a lot of codes! So that's no more camouflage, and no more creative hides... that's limiting the game too.

 

 

Not really, the requirement to have the listing code is so that the cops can look it up on a listing site to see whether it is a cache, therefore it only needs one of the codes to allow them to do that. While this may make it more difficult to hide some of the more challenging caches I think they are a very small minority and I don't think it's too much a price to pay.

Link to comment

Like a lot of other evil stuff, the GAGB has mutated..... They claims to be the 'Representative' body for geocachers in the UK but representatives don't make rules. The GAGB hierarchy have now set themselves up as the 'Governing' body for geocachers in the UK and has given themselves the right to make rules that will be enforced by Groundspeak's reviewers.

Does anyone else get the impression that "All geocachers are equal... but some are more equal than others". I wonder which one is Napoleon and which one is Snowball. ??

Link to comment

I think that the term overlooked needs better clarification. Does passing cars constitute being overlooked? I have hidden some of my caches on nature reserves and there is no telling where a twitcher may be lurking with his/her telephoto lens.

 

I'm not sure it really matters. You are deliberately misinterpreting the rule. But if you want to be extra carefull on a nature reserve then that seem like it's a no bad thing.

Link to comment

Like a lot of other evil stuff, the GAGB has mutated..... They claims to be the 'Representative' body for geocachers in the UK but representatives don't make rules. The GAGB hierarchy have now set themselves up as the 'Governing' body for geocachers in the UK and has given themselves the right to make rules that will be enforced by Groundspeak's reviewers.

Does anyone else get the impression that "All geocachers are equal... but some are more equal than others". I wonder which one is Napoleon and which one is Snowball. ??

I've been of that opinion for a long time... one of the reasons I went off the radar for a while was so that I'd stop being the bad guy who said it! A lot has changed in these few short years... megas look fun (not my cup of tea) and more events I ever dreamed of way back when plotting, with Seasider and John Stead, the North West's first event just after the HCC... I remember you came to that one (apologies once again for the lack of real ale!) We were promised that the GAGB guidelines would never become the de facto rules for approval... now they are, so the reviewer way back then who was barred from standing for GAGB committee was right all along. Yeah they're now positioned as the rule makers, and it sucks big time. If they had much bigger numbers and some interest in creating an elected committee, rather than the volunteer one, then maybe I could accept their position.

 

Whilst there aren't enough of us who want to be one of them, and there aren't enough of them who want to stand up make a difference, they are nothing. The argument of landowner agreements will arise again in their defence I'm sure... several of these were already in the pipeline before the GAGB formed... others were done by individuals... yet more would have happened anyway. I also remember talk of a newsletter... I see issue 3 is out, after 9 years :)

 

We'd be much better off if the reviewers maintained the landowner agreement list on follow the arrow, and the GAGB left us alone.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

 

The cache needs to have the GC code on it... and with the multisite listed caches, that's a lot of codes! So that's no more camouflage, and no more creative hides... that's limiting the game too.

 

 

Not really, the requirement to have the listing code is so that the cops can look it up on a listing site to see whether it is a cache, therefore it only needs one of the codes to allow them to do that. While this may make it more difficult to hide some of the more challenging caches I think they are a very small minority and I don't think it's too much a price to pay.

...and once it's a rule of GC.com I'll follow it... until then I'll just say that I do if I need to get one approved... like everyone else.

Link to comment

Personally I feel the Reviewers, Groundspeak and the GAGB are too insular, they have few people with any real expertise in various disciplines, one such inadequacy springs to mind, was the Geocache in what is probably the most serious cave in the UK.

The Guidebook description reads as follows: Probably the most serious undertaking in British caving, rescue would be time consuming if not impossible

None of the above was mentioned in the listing, and it also failed to mention that where the cache was hidden was highly unstable, and one small movement of a rock or boulder could bring down hundreds of tonnes of rock onto the unsuspecting Cacher, It also failed to mention that it was part of a protected area with full SSSI status. When I brought this to Groundspeak / Reviewers attention, they were not interested, the GAGB kicked me off the committee for making a fuss, which was not justifiable at all levels. This cache was archived the day that the Regional Caving body (DCA) wrote to Groundspeak telling them it had to go, and the DCA removed the cache off site. Now here are the failings of Reviewers, GAGB and Groundspeak on this occasion

1. Failed to understand the seriousness of an accident within the cave, to both the Cacher and rescuers.

2. They failed to listen to me, a Caver of around 30 years at that time, and also was involved in Regional Caving administration, but not in the DCA area admittedly. (But same rules apply nationally).

3. Over looked that the area was an SSSI with strict criteria applied to it, including entrance to the cave.

4. Failed to recognize that the placement of a cache in the area contravened rules laid out by English Nature, and the BCRA on what can and can't be left in Caves and Potholes, so as not to upset the fine balance of UK Karst geology.

5. Ignored many attempts by myself, to take in the reality of the situation, and ignored materials provided at the time which supported my claims.

6. I was told that there was contact between Geocaching and the DCA, that was a lie, the 1st time the DCA had heard about it was from me.

 

But GAGB and Groundspeak made there own judgment and ignored reality, until the DCA became involved. I never did receive an apology from either organisation for their pigheadedness; it is time the GAGB was disbanded and a more professional body implemented, one which works with many Local and National bodies, not ignores them.

 

As I see it now, the rules the GAGB draw up, and Groundspeak jump on to adopt, usually have no firm basis, and have little if any power, this is unlike many other sports bodies, who can actually demand many criteria are met by competitors.

Edited by Moote
Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

I think it may be due to the fact that you tend to make rude and pigheaded statements like the above, that tends to lead people to dismiss your opinion at the start??

Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

 

I've nothing against your grammar. But, as HH says, the tone employed is wearisomely strident and over-opinionated.

 

It's pretty clear that by "people with any real expertise", you really just mean people like yourself. However over-the-top the GAGB response to Wetherby (and I agree that it was ludicrous), I'm pretty sure that's the last thing they need.

Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

I think it may be due to the fact that you tend to make rude and pigheaded statements like the above, that tends to lead people to dismiss your opinion at the start??

 

laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif And Haggis Hunter never has an opinion!

 

Pick me up, I can't stop laughing, in such a serious example I think the words were well chosen, and in the case above I only brought it in the forums at the time, as the various Caching bodies ignored the evidence I provided, they would only accept the reality of the situation once a 3rd party told them it was not on, and that all I had said was factual; that is pigheadedness of the highest order.

 

As for rude, learn its meaning before you use the word, you might then just realize that you have been rude in here on many occasions!

Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

 

I've nothing against your grammar. But, as HH says, the tone employed is wearisomely strident and over-opinionated.

 

It's pretty clear that by "people with any real expertise", you really just mean people like yourself. However over-the-top the GAGB response to Wetherby (and I agree that it was ludicrous), I'm pretty sure that's the last thing they need.

 

Yawn!

 

 

Link to comment
... the various Caching bodies ignored the evidence I provided, they would only accept the reality of the situation once a 3rd party told them it was not on, and that all I had said was factual; that is pigheadedness of the highest order. ..

 

That's exactly the point HH is trying to make: even in those situations where you are in the right and do know what you're talking about, people find it hard to take you seriously because of the overly aggressive way you state your case.

Link to comment

......2. Failed to listen to myself.....

 

The key phrase, I suspect.

 

Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

I think it may be due to the fact that you tend to make rude and pigheaded statements like the above, that tends to lead people to dismiss your opinion at the start??

 

laugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.giflaugh.gif And Haggis Hunter never has an opinion!

 

Pick me up, I can't stop laughing, in such a serious example I think the words were well chosen, and in the case above I only brought it in the forums at the time, as the various Caching bodies ignored the evidence I provided, they would only accept the reality of the situation once a 3rd party told them it was not on, and that all I had said was factual; that is pigheadedness of the highest order.

 

As for rude, learn its meaning before you use the word, you might then just realize that you have been rude in here on many occasions!

To quote yourself...

 

YAWN!!!

Link to comment

Hey!! After all these years he's back and banging on the same old drum ;) Such a shame I don't have to listen/read the same old tosh any more. Bye all, I'm off. :D

 

 

....Hang on Peter, I'm coming as well - Milton my friend, you just do not change - mind talking about change I feel that avatar of yours is particularly inappropriate at the current time :mad: :mad:

Link to comment

Closing this topic as it come to it's inevitable conclusion of a slanging match. If you want to have a constructive discussion please feel free but do not use this forum to have a go at each other just because you don't like the other's opinion.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...