Just who are the GAGB anyway?

July 19, 2011

From reading the several threads related to the Weatherby incident it seems that many people feel that the GAGB are acting with no mandate to make decisions which affect us all. So I thought that maybe it would be a good idea now to have some discussion as to the percieved and actual roles of the GAGB to everyone on this site.

Lets try and keep things civil though.

And to start with i'll explain my starting position.

It seems to me that in the wake of the Weatherby incident that someone probably needed to do something. And to be honest the GAGB are as good as anyone. I have a few concerns though because it seems that they were acting with no mandate and making decisions with the authorities that effect everyone and would be very hard to reverse (strolling up to the ACPO and saying 'sorry they were acting without our consent.' is unlikly to win us any popularity with the police). Secondly it seems that we all agree to be bound by the Groundspeak rules when we sign up. However have we ever agreed to be bound by the GAGB guidelines? It's not that they aren't a useful tool, just that if they are enforced as rules then surely we need to have agreed to abide by these rules rather than the generic Groundspeak ones. Thirdly are the revievers allowed to enforce the GAGB guidelines above the Groundspeak ones?

1.3k · July 19, 2011

From reading the several threads related to the Weatherby incident it seems that many people feel that the GAGB are acting with no mandate to make decisions which affect us all. So I thought that maybe it would be a good idea now to have some discussion as to the percieved and actual roles of the GAGB to everyone on this site.

Lets try and keep things civil though.

And to start with i'll explain my starting position.

It seems to me that in the wake of the Weatherby incident that someone probably needed to do something. And to be honest the GAGB are as good as anyone. I have a few concerns though because it seems that they were acting with no mandate and making decisions with the authorities that effect everyone and would be very hard to reverse (strolling up to the ACPO and saying 'sorry they were acting without our consent.' is unlikly to win us any popularity with the police). Secondly it seems that we all agree to be bound by the Groundspeak rules when we sign up. However have we ever agreed to be bound by the GAGB guidelines? It's not that they aren't a useful tool, just that if they are enforced as rules then surely we need to have agreed to abide by these rules rather than the generic Groundspeak ones. Thirdly are the revievers allowed to enforce the GAGB guidelines above the Groundspeak ones?

Firstly, I'm sure the GAGB have convinced the ACPO that they do indeed have a mandate and the support of the geocaching community. So on that one, yeah... we're committed to agree to something by a committee that are nothing to do with the majority of us.

On your second point, I guess you sign up to be bound by their rules if you become a member. I made sure that I wasn't a member in 2003 by having my membership removed (of course they established in 2004 so I was never really a member!) The rest of the caching community have never signed up to agree to anything that they say, or to be represented by them.

on the third point... a reviewer before Mr Eckington, but after Tim & June, was slated by the GAGB for declaring that he used their guidelines to approve caches. Now it seems that this is standard practice. I don't recall anybody being consulted on this one, which is OK as GS can do as they please... but it's also not on the GS pages. Is it too much to ask to have ALL rules and guidelines in ONE place?

9.2k · July 19, 2011

Groundspeaks Rules/Guidelines change, I'm sure we don't take a read of them every week to see what the changes are.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

1. All local laws apply.

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

3. Geocaches are never buried.

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

5. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military bases.

6. Geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles or 161 meters apart.

7. Geocaches are allowed in space, other planets and spacecraft.

2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container.

2. Label your geocache.

3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

1. Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.

2. A geocache may be disabled or archived.

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

4. Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

If we (in the UK) followed the US guidelines, we wouldn't have caches under bridges.

We wouldn't have the Sidetracked series.

It makes sense to have a central database for information, GS are not going to keep information for individual counties (or keep it upto date).

In the UK someone stepped up and started a group. Known as the GAGB.

Land owners, eg National Trust and councils, are happier to deal with one representative, rather than 'several' separate cachers. (Councils recognize unions, and will negotiate with unions. If you're a council employee, go and try to negotiate your own pay rise!)

Don't like the GAGB? Start your own group.

"I didn't vote for the GAGB"?

Did you vote for your MP? County councilor, district councilor, town/parish councilor?

Maybe you didn't even vote in the elections...

BUT. They still represent YOU.

You go to them if you need them to sort a problem. Not their opponent, who didn't get enough votes.

The GAGB is the only group to stand up and be counted.

If you don't like the GAGB, how about trying to start you own group?

Sort out a land owner database with the likes of the National Trust.

Sort out an agreement with the Met Police for caches around London.

At the next elections for the GAGB (It's announced in these forums) try standing for election yourself. Change things from the inside rather than standing outside trying to pi55 in.

1.3k · July 19, 2011

Groundspeaks Rules/Guidelines change, I'm sure we don't take a read of them every week to see what the changes are.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

1. All local laws apply.

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

3. Geocaches are never buried.

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

5. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military bases.

6. Geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles or 161 meters apart.

7. Geocaches are allowed in space, other planets and spacecraft.

2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container.

2. Label your geocache.

3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

1. Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.

2. A geocache may be disabled or archived.

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

4. Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

If we (in the UK) followed the US guidelines, we wouldn't have caches under bridges.

We wouldn't have the Sidetracked series.

It makes sense to have a central database for information, GS are not going to keep information for individual counties (or keep it upto date).

In the UK someone stepped up and started a group. Known as the GAGB.

Land owners, eg National Trust and councils, are happier to deal with one representative, rather than 'several' separate cachers. (Councils recognize unions, and will negotiate with unions. If you're a council employee, go and try to negotiate your own pay rise!)

Don't like the GAGB? Start your own group.

"I didn't vote for the GAGB"?

Did you vote for your MP? County councilor, district councilor, town/parish councilor?

Maybe you didn't even vote in the elections...

BUT. They still represent YOU.

You go to them if you need them to sort a problem. Not their opponent, who didn't get enough votes.

The GAGB is the only group to stand up and be counted.

If you don't like the GAGB, how about trying to start you own group?

Sort out a land owner database with the likes of the National Trust.

Sort out an agreement with the Met Police for caches around London.

At the next elections for the GAGB (It's announced in these forums) try standing for election yourself. Change things from the inside rather than standing outside trying to pi55 in.

The first one you bolded... Are the GAGB making Law now too?

The second bolded one... jolly good... Groundspeak do that, I do that... most of us do that.

The third one... local regulations and laws... we've established I hope that the GAGB are not a law making body. Nor have I seen them claim to have written a regulation. There are several regulations in this country that are not law.

As for contacting my local MP or similar to resolve a problem... never done it, never will. The same goes for councillors of all levels. Interesting though that a lot of the time you're better off speaking to the people who came second in an election as they have the need to change their policy, so often they're the ones to lobby.

Don't get me started on Unions... coming from a mining family, it's very obvious where unions got us! That said, yes several landowners negotiated with one person (sometimes from the GAGB) but they still get to discuss each and every cacher who wants to hide a box... in the main, I know that the New Forest is a notable exception, there may be another.

As for starting a new group... there are lots of us, and it has been mentioned here, who don't want ANY association... like the US and lots of other countries. So if we don't see the need for the GAGB why start another one? We just want to play... GC.com make the rules... we follow them.

The "local laws apply" means globally... not us here in the UK. There is a bylaw that you can't park overnight in the new forest... there is probably a similar one somewhere in Greece. As a cacher I need to be aware of the law... as does everybody. I don't see how GS pointing out that they don't over rule local law (obvious but they need to say it) translates to "the UK have slightly different laws to the US so you need to form an association to guide you on what you can and can't do." Sometimes I cross the road... not seen an association for that though, but there are lots of local laws and regulations in effect when I do, which are slightly different to those in other countries... how do visitors to the UK manage to survive?

Edited July 19, 2011 by NattyBooshka

July 19, 2011

Groundspeaks Rules/Guidelines change, I'm sure we don't take a read of them every week to see what the changes are.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

I. PLACEMENT Guidelines: Placement guidelines govern the physical location of a geocache.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one.

1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

1. All local laws apply.

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

3. Geocaches are never buried.

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

5. Geocaches are not placed on school property or military bases.

6. Geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles or 161 meters apart.

7. Geocaches are allowed in space, other planets and spacecraft.

2. Other Placement Considerations

1. Select an appropriate location and container.

2. Label your geocache.

3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

1. Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.

2. A geocache may be disabled or archived.

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

4. Instructions for geocaches that are on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

If we (in the UK) followed the US guidelines, we wouldn't have caches under bridges.

We wouldn't have the Sidetracked series.

To be honest, I doubt that would be a great loss to caching and the landowner has already said no caches on their property. That would be covered by landowners wishes wouldn't it?

It makes sense to have a central database for information, GS are not going to keep information for individual counties (or keep it upto date).

Which it isn't so makes it sort of redundant. However, it doesn't take a rule making organisation to host a website.

In the UK someone stepped up and started a group. Known as the GAGB.

Land owners, eg National Trust and councils, are happier to deal with one representative, rather than 'several' separate cachers. (Councils recognize unions, and will negotiate with unions. If you're a council employee, go and try to negotiate your own pay rise!)

One representative of what? 50 people? That isn't representative of cachers and I have a strong suspicion that a lot of these agreements would have happened anyway. Many of those in the database were arranged by one person and not the GAGB. I would imagine that a cacher that actually KNOWS the landowner is far more likely to get an agreement than someone from the other end of the country that has no knowledge of the landowner.

Don't like the GAGB? Start your own group.

"I didn't vote for the GAGB"?

Did you vote for your MP? County councilor, district councilor, town/parish councilor?

Maybe you didn't even vote in the elections...

BUT. They still represent YOU.

You go to them if you need them to sort a problem. Not their opponent, who didn't get enough votes.

The GAGB is the only group to stand up and be counted.

If you don't like the GAGB, how about trying to start you own group?

Sort out a land owner database with the likes of the National Trust.

Sort out an agreement with the Met Police for caches around London.

Oh Please!. Someone once told me that when you start saying "If you don't like it you do it" you've lost the argument and run out of defence.

I shouldn't need to vote for the GAGB Committee as I'm not a member. Being a non member of an organisation should mean that I remain unaffected by the decisions made by that committee. They are voted for by their membership to represent them, not everyone else. There were more votes cast in our Parish Council election!

You cannot seriously equate the GAGB with government! We need a government, they supply services for the greater good of everyone in this country. They set the taxes we pay. And, do you seriously think that a politician is going to sort out my problem if it involves going against the party line?

We don't NEED the GAGB.

At the next elections for the GAGB (It's announced in these forums) try standing for election yourself. Change things from the inside rather than standing outside trying to pi55 in.

So, because 7 cachers got together in secret and came up with the GAGB and forced it upon the rest of us, I have to join the organisation and change it? I will stop trying to pi55 in when the GAGB stop telling me how to play what has to be the simplest game on the planet.

July 19, 2011

I'm posting a second response to keep it separate from the reply above.

It may sound strange but I don't actually object to the existence of a caching organisation. I have no reason to and, may even join one one day. I have no objection to an organisation that works for, and represents, it's membership. In fact I'd be somewhat disappointed if it didn't do those things. What I do object to is an organisation that is foisted upon all of us.

The GAGB may well have honourable intentions but it has a lot of problems.

1. It has far too close ties to GC to remain independent. It has come up with a new guideline and announced it on GC forums. The very act of doing that has made it SEEM as if the GAGB is now making the rules for Groundspeak in the UK. It hasn't announced this on ANY OTHER LISTING SITE despite one of them being UK based and a general follower of GAGB guidelines.

2. It is far too secretive. When my local council elections come about, they publish the votes, not who voted but who got what. When I asked the GAGB for that information it was something of a battle. When my parish council meets they keep minutes so that those of us that elected them can see what they are doing. Where is the GAGB minutes? Where are the minutes or notes from the negotiations with big landowners done in our name? How can we check that what you are doing is in our best interests?

3. Data. We get told many times that the GAGB "See's the phone calls", "deals with the irate landowners" where are the records? How can we gauge the effectiveness of the GAGB if we don't have the information? How many calls are you getting each year? How many irate farmers do you deal with? We don't need addresses but raw numbers would help to see if the GAGB is something to get behind. It's something they should be monitoring internally as well to see if they are doing any good.

So, in short, the GAGB are a committee of busy bodies that have achieved very little in the years they have existed, they represent a tiny fraction of cachers, get input from one listing site, and have failed in just about every single one of their stated aims.

Hell, they didn't even manage to get the name right!

1.3k · July 19, 2011

Hell, they didn't even manage to get the name right!

Aye... But GAUK would have meant changing a little HTML by the time they realised!

1.1k · July 19, 2011

Isnt it about time you all stopped hacking at the GAGB. They seem to be the only ones who got in touch with the police when it seemed that Geocaching in and around wetherby was going to ground to a halt. Not only that they have done some considerable work in getting permission for ALL geocachers to place caches on forestry or private land, and to top it all they do it IN THIER SPARE TIME. Sorry but all this bitching is getting on my nerves. Rant over.

1.1k · July 19, 2011

Something else to think about. If the GAGB had not taken the initiative and spoken to the police, who would have, and would the police listen to them. If the police had managed to get Caching banned in Wetherby where would it have ended. So I think we should be thankful that a group of people did something that might have saved Geocaching in the UK. Now that the groundstone has been laid – the new guideline – it can be worked on and refined. So come up with some constructive suggestions and help them.

1.3k · July 19, 2011

Isnt it about time you all stopped hacking at the GAGB. They seem to be the only ones who got in touch with the police when it seemed that Geocaching in and around wetherby was going to ground to a halt. Not only that they have done some considerable work in getting permission for ALL geocachers to place caches on forestry or private land, and to top it all they do it IN THIER SPARE TIME. Sorry but all this bitching is getting on my nerves. Rant over.

With all due respect, they don't have their rules forced on cachers in Germany though.

1.1k · July 19, 2011

OK, so the rules are withdrawn and then you can see where Geocaching in the UK will end up, and if the police then bann Geocaching everyone starts screaming about a police state. Then you can start looking for another hobby.

July 19, 2011

1. All local laws apply.
1. Groundspeak respects the wishes of land owners and land managers.

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

Icenians is right, these guidelines/rules apply to the law of the land, not voluntary bodies. GAGB can't justify it's existence on these grounds. Now I have no problem with an organisation that supports cachers, but from my perspective the GAGB goes beyond this into setting itself up as an equivelant to Groundspeak. Indeed I've seen their most ardent supporters ocassionally on this forum speak of the GAGB as though it's rules take precedence against Groundspeaks - as though the GAGB is a portal to the UK through which Groundspeak must go in order to do business.

What I find doubly ironic though, reading through past posts on this forum, is the whole idea of going to another caching site if you don't agree with GAGB guidelines. When one explores the alternatives, one quickly discovers that GAGB has it's hand in all the pies. The only solution if you don't want to be involved with GAGB is setting up your own alternative caching site and ignoring when they come calling... which they will.

Oh and whats the other alternative? Start our own competing group? Right then I vote we all start the Great Britains Association of Geocaching (GBAG). The only people we hate more than the reviewers are the f**king Geocaching Assocation of Great Britain (GAGB).

On a more serious note - why do reviewers need a seperate organisation with seperate set of rules to Groundspeak? Surely Groundspeaks own policy is that the rules are guidelines and caches are published at the discretion of their volunteer reviewers. If a reviewer feels that the GS guideline in a specific scenario is too rigid and the cache is safe (e.g. in the case of an bridge) then they have their discretion to allow it and/or consult with other reviewers. If they feel that the GS guideline doesn't go far enough (e.g. a dry stone wall) again they can choose to consult or deny it. I don't see why the GAGB is needed for what the reviewers should already be doing at their own discretion.

Plus there's all the confusion for those new to the game and those not new but don't bother with the forums as others have mentioned. Whats the point of joining a website with a set of rules and guidelines which you follow to the letter, when it comes to publish and suddenly you're confronted with this secret society that has a bunch of extra rules not even affiliated with the Groundspeak - and requires you join up with or at least abide by another external website/organisation!

It's borderline coercion and reminiscent of websites that offer a product or service, but then force you to sign up with an external 3rd party to access it, often against privacy and wishes of the user.

July 19, 2011

Isnt it about time you all stopped hacking at the GAGB. They seem to be the only ones who got in touch with the police when it seemed that Geocaching in and around wetherby was going to ground to a halt. Not only that they have done some considerable work in getting permission for ALL geocachers to place caches on forestry or private land, and to top it all they do it IN THIER SPARE TIME. Sorry but all this bitching is getting on my nerves. Rant over.

The point isn't to hack at the GAGB. The point is that they seem to be telling everyone that they are our representatives. And furthermore they are acting as such (and making promises as such) in front of organisations such as the police.

What if I were to set myself up as the GAUK and then promise the police that we would stop putting geocaches out and recall all of the ones that are currently out? Then someone else has to go and tell the poilce that actually I was being an idiot. But I have a mandate from 100% of the membership to act (i'm the only member).

So the GAGB are well meaning yes. And they probably are the best people for the job. But unless they are official (linked to Groundspeak as the UK representatives) then they have no mandate to act like this.

1.3k · July 19, 2011

OK, so the rules are withdrawn and then you can see where Geocaching in the UK will end up, and if the police then bann Geocaching everyone starts screaming about a police state. Then you can start looking for another hobby.

The game has existed here for over a century... Can't see a bomb scare killing it. We don't live in a police state, there are plenty of other things that have caused security alerts... Mostly legal... Photography is a recent example. One policeman in a small town doesn't have much say, and the consultation required to permanently ban something like geocaching would be entertaining!

July 19, 2011

Something else to think about. If the GAGB had not taken the initiative and spoken to the police, who would have, and would the police listen to them. If the police had managed to get Caching banned in Wetherby where would it have ended. So I think we should be thankful that a group of people did something that might have saved Geocaching in the UK. Now that the groundstone has been laid – the new guideline – it can be worked on and refined. So come up with some constructive suggestions and help them.

I highly doubt that Wetherbys Finest can set the agenda for UK policing... but if they did and effectively banned caching... I imagine I would continue to geocache anyway. In fact I'd break the law just as I break the law when I record a CD that I have legally purchased to my computer or mp3 player - which millions of people in the UK do - which is also illegal. Just as I do many common sense things that are illegal in the UK due to ancient legislation, but even politicians and police themselves do and it is not enforced.

Rulers rule with the consent of the people. If enough of the people want to do something they will, and the rulers will be powerless to stop it.

1.3k · July 19, 2011

Something else to think about. If the GAGB had not taken the initiative and spoken to the police, who would have, and would the police listen to them. If the police had managed to get Caching banned in Wetherby where would it have ended. So I think we should be thankful that a group of people did something that might have saved Geocaching in the UK. Now that the groundstone has been laid – the new guideline – it can be worked on and refined. So come up with some constructive suggestions and help them.

I highly doubt that Wetherbys Finest can set the agenda for UK policing... but if they did and effectively banned caching... I imagine I would continue to geocache anyway. In fact I'd break the law just as I break the law when I record a CD that I have legally purchased to my computer or mp3 player - which millions of people in the UK do - which is also illegal. Just as I do many common sense things that are illegal in the UK due to ancient legislation, but even politicians and police themselves do and it is not enforced.

Rulers rule with the consent of the people. If enough of the people want to do something they will, and the rulers will be powerless to stop it.

We'd all just have to revert to letterboxing. Using grid references as clues! Which is effectively what we do.

1.6k · July 19, 2011

on the third point... a reviewer before Mr Eckington, but after Tim & June, was slated by the GAGB for declaring that he used their guidelines to approve caches. Now it seems that this is standard practice. I don't recall anybody being consulted on this one, which is OK as GS can do as they please... but it's also not on the GS pages. Is it too much to ask to have ALL rules and guidelines in ONE place?

Between Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth, who were all Reviewers at the same time and all resigned together at the same time, and Eckington becoming a Reviewer there was no one else from the UK Reviewing caches. Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth were involved in actually setting up the GAGB in the first place.

I'd also suggest you have a look at the number of Geocaching Associations in the US, the GAGB is not the only local Geocaching Association in the world.

Groundspeak are currently working on a project detailing all Local Guidelines and Land Owner Agreements, but is it has to be populated by Volunteers, that is a on going Project. Once full populated it will be rolled out.

As for

I will stop trying to **** in when the GAGB stop telling me how to play what has to be the simplest game on the planet.

It was when you first became a Geocacher, there was virtually no Guidelines. But over time the hobby has grown up, moved from being underground. Landowners have become more aware of Geocaching. So someone has had to step up to deal with all that has created!

Would you have been the one to deal with Historic Scotland when they found a cache in a Dry Stone Wall, one that is a Scheduled Monument? Or the Woodlands Trust, because they became aware of Geocaching? Or the Forestry Commission because they became aware of Geocaching? Or be the one to negotiate out the matter of Placement Fee's with a large number of Landowners?

The GAGB have stepped in and dealt with all that. I'd suggest you catch up with Geocaching in the "Now" and stop thinking about as still being the same as 2002.When it was literally the wild west, with virtually no regulation, no Landowners being aware of the hobby. Very few caches around, there was around 3,500 active caches in the UK in 2006. We are now close to 100,000 active caches in the UK. The hobby is now totally different to way back in 2002, it's the hobbies equivalent of a Baby growing up into a Teenager into Adult!

As for the name, well if you'd been a member, you'll have know that the "Members" voted on a name change, and the vote was to keep the current one. So if your going to castigate them about something, please at least get your facts correct. Wikipedia article on Great Britain at the time of formation there was discussions about the inclusion of Ireland, so I believe the usage of Great Britain is correct. otherwise to be correct it would have to be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Given that NI is now Included in Ulster Ireland on GC. Before anyone decides to have a rant about that Ulster is the Historical Region not the modern Political Region.

Also if you care to look, I posted the topic about the implementation of the Guideline, not a GAGB Committee Member. I also at the same tome posted the same message to all the Local UK Geocaching Forums t hat I'm a member off, Again not the GAGB Committee.

FYI the UK Reviewers are possibly the busiest in the world in regards to Landowner issues, because we cover such a small Geographic area, with so many separate landowners. With one Major Landowner being divided into regional areas, each having to be dealt with separately. For Wales alone there is over 4,500 separate Scheduled Monuments to deal with. CADW the Welsh Designating Authority being fully aware of Geocaching, The same for their counterparts in England and Scotland. The German Reviewers having totally different issues to deal with.

The GAGB provides a lot a support over dealing with those Landowners, so please do not try and compare 2 totally different situations against each other.

If enough of the people want to do something they will, and the rulers will be powerless to stop it.

If the UK Police contact Groundspeak about a cache, Groundspeak will task a Local Reviewer with Archiving the cache. That has happened several times pre Wetherby. Also FYI there has already been one cache Archived, due to concerns about it causing a security issue. several hundred miles away from Wetherby. If we can't self police ourselves, and loose the support we do have off the Police. Then the future will see Legal Governance of the hobby by the Government. How many do you think will be interested in taking part, if they know that they face a huge chance of at least receiving a caution due to Geocaching in the UK being legally regulated?

Personally I've had a number of members contact me, concerned over the risk of receiving a caution. That's without any negative legislation. You've mentioned illegally copying CD's, yet Legal Opinion is that you are entitled to make a copy for personal usage. However if you make a copy for someone else, then you are breaking the law. Again the 2 situations are different. In one you have the Copyright Holder making a claim against you, in the case of Geocaching you have the Police applying any one of a number of Laws against you, as the person at Wetherby has found out at major cost to his career.

Deci

July 19, 2011

Isnt it about time you all stopped hacking at the GAGB. They seem to be the only ones who got in touch with the police when it seemed that Geocaching in and around wetherby was going to ground to a halt. Not only that they have done some considerable work in getting permission for ALL geocachers to place caches on forestry or private land, and to top it all they do it IN THIER SPARE TIME. Sorry but all this bitching is getting on my nerves. Rant over.

With respect, what else did you expect in a thread with this title?

Please, stop using the "in their spare time" card. That tired phrase has been pulled out of the hat way to often in these forums. Just because you do something in my name does not mean I have to be grateful. Especially when I didn't ask you to! (I don't mean you personally here )

If they don't have the time then they really shouldn't be doing it. Regardless of payment for these things, if you want to represent a whole hobby in the UK you better make sure you are able to, have the time, and prepared for people disagreeing with you. If you are not ready for those then don't apply for the job.

July 19, 2011

Personally I've had a number of members contact me, concerned over the risk of receiving a caution. That's without any negative legislation. You've mentioned illegally copying CD's, yet Legal Opinion is that you are entitled to make a copy for personal usage. However if you make a copy for someone else, then you are breaking the law. Again the 2 situations are different. In one you have the Copyright Holder making a claim against you, in the case of Geocaching you have the Police applying any one of a number of Laws against you, as the person at Wetherby has found out at major cost to his career.

Slightly OT, but just to correct you on that one point - it may be 'legal opinion' (I certainly wouldn't trust who you're getting this opinion from) but as UK law stands format shifting is illegal in the UK regardless of who the copy is for:

http://www.telegraph...opying-CDs.html

http://www.piratepar...llegal-and-wro/

http://infojustice.org/archives/208

http://www.consumerf...fuses-consumers

There are proposals that exist to allow this but as it stands, if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My point stands regarding consent of the people. I wonder how Martin Luthor King would have dealt with Rosa Parks had he been a GAGB member? "Now listen Rosa, I've negotiated with the nice white policemen for us to have the last 4 rows of the bus, so at least you don't have to sit on the very back row. Now you need to appreciate that if I hadn't negotiated this deal, we blacks wouldn't be able to ride the bus at all!"

3k · July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

1.2k · July 19, 2011

Something else to think about. If the GAGB had not taken the initiative and spoken to the police, who would have, and would the police listen to them.

This is Groundspeak's site and the cache was listed with their approval because it complied with their rules. The obvious place for the police to come to is Groundspeak. Yes, they are American but they operate in this country and they have representatives over here called Reviewers. I should know how it works because I used to be one. Why call in an outside organisation who, I'm guessing, 90% of active cachers have never heard of? ALL cachers listing their caches here have heard of Groundspeak. Any reviewer could immediately give the police any detail they wanted about any cache as they have access to all hidden waypoints, details of permissions granted etc. Nobody else can do this.

On a more serious note - why do reviewers need a seperate organisation with seperate set of rules to Groundspeak? Surely Groundspeaks own policy is that the rules are guidelines and caches are published at the discretion of their volunteer reviewers. If a reviewer feels that the GS guideline in a specific scenario is too rigid and the cache is safe (e.g. in the case of an bridge) then they have their discretion to allow it and/or consult with other reviewers.

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

I personally think the GAGB have some good things going for them but over time I have come to the conclusion that I do not agree with everything they are trying to do now. As a reviewer I used to work very closely with them. However nobody who puts themselves forward like GAGB, politicians or even GS reviewers should be immune from criticism. So telling others not to criticise is facile. This is a forum and as far as I recall a Forum is defined as a debating place.

edited for speeling!

Edited July 19, 2011 by The Hornet

July 19, 2011

The GAGB have stepped in and dealt with all that. I'd suggest you catch up with Geocaching in the "Now" and stop thinking about as still being the same as 2002.When it was literally the wild west, with virtually no regulation, no Landowners being aware of the hobby. Very few caches around, there was around 3,500 active caches in the UK in 2006. We are now close to 100,000 active caches in the UK. The hobby is now totally different to way back in 2002, it's the hobbies equivalent of a Baby growing up into a Teenager into Adult!

Oh rubbish. The only thing that is different is you lot pile on more rules. The game is exactly the same. We go out and hide boxes of tat, other people come find the tat. It's been that way for a lot longer than the last 10 years.

As for the name, well if you'd been a member, you'll have know that the "Members" voted on a name change, and the vote was to keep the current one. So if your going to castigate them about something, please at least get your facts correct. Wikipedia article on Great Britain at the time of formation there was discussions about the inclusion of Ireland, so I believe the usage of Great Britain is correct. otherwise to be correct it would have to be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Given that NI is now Included in Ulster Ireland on GC. Before anyone decides to have a rant about that Ulster is the Historical Region not the modern Political Region.

I'm sorry but Great Britain is the big island. Ireland, north or south, is not part of Great Britian and this whole thing was discussed at the time the GAGB was formed. However, the line from me was meant to be a little tongue in cheek on that.

Also if you care to look, I posted the topic about the implementation of the Guideline, not a GAGB Committee Member. I also at the same tome posted the same message to all the Local UK Geocaching Forums t hat I'm a member off, Again not the GAGB Committee.

I did look, and the thread with the changed description was posted by Wombles who is, as far as I'm aware, the chairman of the GAGB. Your new rule wouldn't have bothered me so much in that it's "your" site so you can apply whatever rules you wish. My gripe is with the GAGB making the rules. The last one SEEMED, I'll type that again in case it gets missed, SEEMED to suggest that the GAGB were now making the GC rules.

FYI the UK Reviewers are possibly the busiest in the world in regards to Landowner issues, because we cover such a small Geographic area, with so many separate landowners. With one Major Landowner being divided into regional areas, each having to be dealt with separately. For Wales alone there is over 4,500 separate Scheduled Monuments to deal with. CADW the Welsh Designating Authority being fully aware of Geocaching, The same for their counterparts in England and Scotland. The German Reviewers having totally different issues to deal with.

The GAGB provides a lot a support over dealing with those Landowners, so please do not try and compare 2 totally different situations against each other.

I assume we are responding to a different person here as I didn't mention Germany. If people listing caches on GC followed GC guidelines then surely you wouldn't have these issues. Landowners who have given permission can hardly be surprised that they have found a cache. As far back as I can remember the permission requirement was always there. I don't have any problem following the published rules of a cache listing site.

Personally I've had a number of members contact me, concerned over the risk of receiving a caution. That's without any negative legislation. You've mentioned illegally copying CD's, yet Legal Opinion is that you are entitled to make a copy for personal usage. However if you make a copy for someone else, then you are breaking the law. Again the 2 situations are different. In one you have the Copyright Holder making a claim against you, in the case of Geocaching you have the Police applying any one of a number of Laws against you, as the person at Wetherby has found out at major cost to his career.

Deci

Well, until someone tells me what the actual caution was for I'll leave this alone. I think that this just highlights the knee jerk reaction all round. The police have stopped and questioned cachers many many times and, as far as we know, only 1 has received a caution for some unknown offence.

July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

Keehotee, I normally have a lot of respect for what you have to say as you usually make a lot of sense. In this case, I attempted to provide a variety of links... I don't spend a lot of time reading newspapers - only the top link was a newspaper article and appears to be the only link you bothered to click on. However there is Google and anyone is free to do the research yourself.

ETA: Just reading over I think we may have just slightly missed each others point. I used the term "by implication... a criminal". On a purely techincal basis. Yes you'd be pursued for civil infringement unless you attempted to take commercial advantage. However, the lines are blurry and in some cases criminal charges are brought - as a couple of Cinema cammers have recently found to their detriment (just google) - despite not commercially gaining from their activities.

Edited July 19, 2011 by _TeamFitz_

July 19, 2011

Something else to think about. If the GAGB had not taken the initiative and spoken to the police, who would have, and would the police listen to them.

This is Groundspeak's site and the cache was listed with their approval because it complied with their rules. The obvious place for the police to come to is Groundspeak. Yes, they are American but they operate in this country and they have representatives over here called Reviewers. I should know how it works because I used to be one. Why call in an outside organisation who, I'm guessing, 90% of active cachers have never heard of? ALL cachers listing their caches here have heard of Groundspeak. Any reviewer could immediately give the police any detail they wanted about any cache as they have access to all hidden waypoints, details of permissions granted etc. Nobody else can do this.

On a more serious note - why do reviewers need a seperate organisation with seperate set of rules to Groundspeak? Surely Groundspeaks own policy is that the rules are guidelines and caches are published at the discretion of their volunteer reviewers. If a reviewer feels that the GS guideline in a specific scenario is too rigid and the cache is safe (e.g. in the case of an bridge) then they have their discretion to allow it and/or consult with other reviewers.

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

I personally think the GAGB have some good things going for them but over time I have come to the conclusion that I do not agree with everything they are trying to do now. As a reviewer I used to work very closely with them. However nobody who puts themselves forward like GAGB, politicians or even GS reviewers should be immune from criticism. So telling others not to criticise is facile. This is a forum and as far as I recall a Forum is defined as a debating place.

edited for speeling!

Umm... I agree... I think?

1.3k · July 19, 2011

Just been looking at copyright law... "backing up" an audio CD is illegal. It's black and white... It may or may not remain so. It's almost impossibly unlikely it'd ever get to court, sadly... As a judge could modify the law.

Edited July 19, 2011 by NattyBooshka

July 19, 2011

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

If this is the case, how are they managing to apply the GAGB guidelines? Or does discretion only go one way?

1.2k · July 19, 2011

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

If this is the case, how are they managing to apply the GAGB guidelines? Or does discretion only go one way?

Yes that is correct, or at least it was when I was reviewing. I could ADD restrictions but woe betide me if I tried to avoid something a Groundspeak "Guideline" suggested I shouldn't.

I felt and still feel that some restrictions are good for the game here. I am thinking of our restriction on placing caches in dry stone walls which not being an American item gets no mention in the GS "Guidelines". Eckington and I applied this despite some strong opposition at the time because we felt it was the right thing to do. I guess it's debatable whether we were right or not.

Conversely I remember the battles we had over such "commercial" organisations as pubs, tea rooms etc. which we wanted to allow and for which we were castigated for by a number of American reviewers.

July 19, 2011

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

If this is the case, how are they managing to apply the GAGB guidelines? Or does discretion only go one way?

Yes that is correct, or at least it was when I was reviewing. I could ADD restrictions but woe betide me if I tried to avoid something a Groundspeak "Guideline" suggested I shouldn't.

I felt and still feel that some restrictions are good for the game here. I am thinking of our restriction on placing caches in dry stone walls which not being an American item gets no mention in the GS "Guidelines". Eckington and I applied this despite some strong opposition at the time because we felt it was the right thing to do. I guess it's debatable whether we were right or not.

Conversely I remember the battles we had over such "commercial" organisations as pubs, tea rooms etc. which we wanted to allow and for which we were castigated for by a number of American reviewers.

I think the answer here is... why don't the GAGB set up their own alternative geocaching website? Was this ever considered? (I'd still be on geocaching.com myself, but everyone would be happy).

1.3k · July 19, 2011

No, no no!!!!! A local reviewer has almost no discretion over what Groundspeak says. It was because of that very lack of discretion I and my colleague at the time resigned from Groundspeak. Maybe current reviewers have more discretion than we did then but I doubt it. Or maybe they just don't feel it is important enough to make a stand.

If this is the case, how are they managing to apply the GAGB guidelines? Or does discretion only go one way?

Yes that is correct, or at least it was when I was reviewing. I could ADD restrictions but woe betide me if I tried to avoid something a Groundspeak "Guideline" suggested I shouldn't.

I felt and still feel that some restrictions are good for the game here. I am thinking of our restriction on placing caches in dry stone walls which not being an American item gets no mention in the GS "Guidelines". Eckington and I applied this despite some strong opposition at the time because we felt it was the right thing to do. I guess it's debatable whether we were right or not.

Conversely I remember the battles we had over such "commercial" organisations as pubs, tea rooms etc. which we wanted to allow and for which we were castigated for by a number of American reviewers.

I think the answer here is... why don't the GAGB set up their own alternative geocaching website? Was this ever considered? (I'd still be on geocaching.com myself, but everyone would be happy).

I remember a discussion with a few people about what to do if Groundspeak ceased to be. There was a backup server with the cache listings, we were in the process of forming an association. It didn't come to anything... And from memory didn't involve GAGB leaders or G:UK's for that matter.

All pie in the sky as it was never needed.

Edited July 19, 2011 by NattyBooshka

3k · July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

Keehotee, I normally have a lot of respect for what you have to say as you usually make a lot of sense. In this case, I attempted to provide a variety of links... I don't spend a lot of time reading newspapers - only the top link was a newspaper article and appears to be the only link you bothered to click on. However there is Google and anyone is free to do the research yourself.

ETA: Just reading over I think we may have just slightly missed each others point. I used the term "by implication... a criminal". On a purely techincal basis. Yes you'd be pursued for civil infringement unless you attempted to take commercial advantage. However, the lines are blurry and in some cases criminal charges are brought - as a couple of Cinema cammers have recently found to their detriment (just google) - despite not commercially gaining from their activities.

Ditto...

Wasn't aimed at you - just pointing out that not everything that's against the law is criminal (unlike caching in Wetherby, it appears......)

1.3k · July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

Keehotee, I normally have a lot of respect for what you have to say as you usually make a lot of sense. In this case, I attempted to provide a variety of links... I don't spend a lot of time reading newspapers - only the top link was a newspaper article and appears to be the only link you bothered to click on. However there is Google and anyone is free to do the research yourself.

ETA: Just reading over I think we may have just slightly missed each others point. I used the term "by implication... a criminal". On a purely techincal basis. Yes you'd be pursued for civil infringement unless you attempted to take commercial advantage. However, the lines are blurry and in some cases criminal charges are brought - as a couple of Cinema cammers have recently found to their detriment (just google) - despite not commercially gaining from their activities.

Ditto...

Wasn't aimed at you - just pointing out that not everything that's against the law is criminal (unlike caching in Wetherby, it appears......)

Caching in Wetherby can't be illegal as officer dibble didn't go after the CO. The seeker must have been "guilty" of something else, or just plain scared stupid. Of course we have had to comment on this without knowledge of what we're actually discussing.

July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

Keehotee, I normally have a lot of respect for what you have to say as you usually make a lot of sense. In this case, I attempted to provide a variety of links... I don't spend a lot of time reading newspapers - only the top link was a newspaper article and appears to be the only link you bothered to click on. However there is Google and anyone is free to do the research yourself.

ETA: Just reading over I think we may have just slightly missed each others point. I used the term "by implication... a criminal". On a purely techincal basis. Yes you'd be pursued for civil infringement unless you attempted to take commercial advantage. However, the lines are blurry and in some cases criminal charges are brought - as a couple of Cinema cammers have recently found to their detriment (just google) - despite not commercially gaining from their activities.

Ditto...

Wasn't aimed at you - just pointing out that not everything that's against the law is criminal (unlike caching in Wetherby, it appears......)

Caching in Wetherby can't be illegal as officer dibble didn't go after the CO. The seeker must have been "guilty" of something else, or just plain scared stupid. Of course we have had to comment on this without knowledge of what we're actually discussing.

I must admit, I'm tempted to submit an FOIA request myself and find out, since it would benefit the geocaching community immensely. Now if only there were some kind of organisation that supports geocachers we could ask to do this on our behalf.........

ETA:

OK who's up for this?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/official_information/how_access.aspx

Public sector bodies covered by the ActThe Act applies to public bodies including:

government departments and local assemblies

local authorities and councils

health trusts, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries

schools, colleges and universities

publicly funded museums

the police

non-departmental public bodies, committees and advisory bodies

There is a caveat about asking for information relating to another person;

Some information may not be given to you because it is exempt, for example because it would unfairly reveal personal details about somebody else.

However I believe we could word a letter in such a way that we are not specifically interested in the person, just the details of the arrest and the charge etc...

I don't mind taking a stab at this myself, anyone care to assist with the wording and/or info required? Should we start a new thread so as not to detract from the topic?

Edited July 19, 2011 by _TeamFitz_

1.3k · July 19, 2011

if you have ever copied a legally purchased track to any other kind of media then you have effectively broken the law and by implication you are a criminal regardless of if the authorities have chosen to look away.

My turn to be pedantic...

To commit criminal copyright theft you must intend to "pass off" a copyrighted work for a profit.

Copying for your own use is a civil tort against the copyright owner, NOT a criminal offence, despite what the papers might tell you....

Keehotee, I normally have a lot of respect for what you have to say as you usually make a lot of sense. In this case, I attempted to provide a variety of links... I don't spend a lot of time reading newspapers - only the top link was a newspaper article and appears to be the only link you bothered to click on. However there is Google and anyone is free to do the research yourself.

ETA: Just reading over I think we may have just slightly missed each others point. I used the term "by implication... a criminal". On a purely techincal basis. Yes you'd be pursued for civil infringement unless you attempted to take commercial advantage. However, the lines are blurry and in some cases criminal charges are brought - as a couple of Cinema cammers have recently found to their detriment (just google) - despite not commercially gaining from their activities.

Ditto...

Wasn't aimed at you - just pointing out that not everything that's against the law is criminal (unlike caching in Wetherby, it appears......)

Caching in Wetherby can't be illegal as officer dibble didn't go after the CO. The seeker must have been "guilty" of something else, or just plain scared stupid. Of course we have had to comment on this without knowledge of what we're actually discussing.

I must admit, I'm tempted to submit an FOIA request myself and find out, since it would benefit the geocaching community immensely. Now if only there were some kind of organisation that supports geocachers we could ask to do this on our behalf.........

ETA:

OK who's up for this?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/official_information/how_access.aspx

Public sector bodies covered by the ActThe Act applies to public bodies including:

government departments and local assemblies

local authorities and councils

health trusts, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries

schools, colleges and universities

publicly funded museums

the police

non-departmental public bodies, committees and advisory bodies

There is a caveat about asking for information relating to another person;

Some information may not be given to you because it is exempt, for example because it would unfairly reveal personal details about somebody else.

However I believe we could word a letter in such a way that we are not specifically interested in the person, just the details of the arrest and the charge etc...

I don't mind taking a stab at this myself, anyone care to assist with the wording and/or info required? Should we start a new thread so as not to detract from the topic?

Ok... I'll ask them/assist you tomorrow... PM me.

Thinking about it... the details of the arrest are also irrelevant... only the charge is an issue. I really don't care if I'm arrested and released, been done once, as long as I'm not charged.

Edited July 20, 2011 by NattyBooshka

1.3k · July 20, 2011

on the third point... a reviewer before Mr Eckington, but after Tim & June, was slated by the GAGB for declaring that he used their guidelines to approve caches. Now it seems that this is standard practice. I don't recall anybody being consulted on this one, which is OK as GS can do as they please... but it's also not on the GS pages. Is it too much to ask to have ALL rules and guidelines in ONE place?

Between Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth, who were all Reviewers at the same time and all resigned together at the same time, and Eckington becoming a Reviewer there was no one else from the UK Reviewing caches. Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth were involved in actually setting up the GAGB in the first place.

As your caching history is so good, you obviously know who I'm talking about then.

I guess that they resigned in a short space of time, and I reckon I could work out exactly when. One of the 3 was allowed to become GAGB chairman, one of the others was barred from standing for committee because they were a reviewer. So either the GAGB were always a bit, as someone suggested, "some more equal than others" or the reviewer in my point was indeed active after T&J were and before Eckington took up his duties.

Edited July 20, 2011 by NattyBooshka

July 20, 2011

Between Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth, who were all Reviewers at the same time and all resigned together at the same time, and Eckington becoming a Reviewer there was no one else from the UK Reviewing caches. Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth were involved in actually setting up the GAGB in the first place.

Deci

Not quite correct I am afraid Deci. After T&J and Richard and Beth resigned I was invited to be a reviewer by Moss Trooper and I worked with him for several months prior to his decision n to step down.

Dave

1.3k · July 20, 2011

Between Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth, who were all Reviewers at the same time and all resigned together at the same time, and Eckington becoming a Reviewer there was no one else from the UK Reviewing caches. Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth were involved in actually setting up the GAGB in the first place.

Deci

Not quite correct I am afraid Deci. After T&J and Richard and Beth resigned I was invited to be a reviewer by Moss Trooper and I worked with him for several months prior to his decision n to step down.

Dave

That's what I thought too... by Eck I was right!

1k · July 20, 2011

anyone else want to stick the boot in or try and score points , what a waste of time, but if it keeps half a dozen grumpy people happy who have some sort of grudge or axe to grind who am I to question it

GAGB are here, if you like it or not, this discussion will not make them vanish

1.2k · July 20, 2011

anyone else want to stick the boot in or try and score points , what a waste of time, but if it keeps half a dozen grumpy people happy who have some sort of grudge or axe to grind who am I to question it

GAGB are here, if you like it or not, this discussion will not make them vanish

Not being one of the critics (I think!) but conversely the original G.O.G. can I just clarify? Are you saying that people cannot criticise? I think the GAGB do some good work and I admire their volunteers but surely people with alternative views should be allowed to question/criticise? From ther various threads I have read I have been impressed by how the criticism has been kept civil. I remember many times when I moderated this forum that this wouldn't have happened!

1.3k · July 20, 2011

anyone else want to stick the boot in or try and score points , what a waste of time, but if it keeps half a dozen grumpy people happy who have some sort of grudge or axe to grind who am I to question it

GAGB are here, if you like it or not, this discussion will not make them vanish

Not being one of the critics (I think!) but conversely the original G.O.G. can I just clarify? Are you saying that people cannot criticise? I think the GAGB do some good work and I admire their volunteers but surely people with alternative views should be allowed to question/criticise? From ther various threads I have read I have been impressed by how the criticism has been kept civil. I remember many times when I moderated this forum that this wouldn't have happened!

As one of the critics... I also think they do some good work. I support a lot of what they do. I do, have issues though.

July 20, 2011

Can I go back to the original title of this thread and ask - Just who are the GAGB anyway ?

From reading this thread it appears they were a bunch of early cachers who decided that Groundspeak rules weren't good enough for the UK so they set themselves up as a committee to make rules for the UK Geocaching community

I thought they were an 'alternative' caching organisation like terracaching or opencaching until this Wetherby incident

July 20, 2011

it appears they were a bunch of early cachers who decided that Groundspeak rules weren't good enough for the UK so they set themselves up as a committee to make rules for the UK Geocaching community

They always said they would, and indeed did (do) have, elections. They are a valid committee. I didn't mean to make my comments make the committee sound unelected these days.

3.3k · July 20, 2011

I applaud the GAGB committee for going out of their way to do something positive for caching with the the best interests of the hobby as the reason for existing. I suspect that if each and every GB(UK) geocacher was given the facts about what they do and what they represent there would be an overwhelming amount of support for them. There seems to be a vocal minority here trying to break them apart, Give them a break, they are doing it in your own best interests.

July 20, 2011

Can I go back to the original title of this thread and ask - Just who are the GAGB anyway ?

From reading this thread it appears they were a bunch of early cachers who decided that Groundspeak rules weren't good enough for the UK so they set themselves up as a committee to make rules for the UK Geocaching community

I thought they were an 'alternative' caching organisation like terracaching or opencaching until this Wetherby incident

I think perhaps they should be an alternative caching organisation... in my experience since since I started caching 2 years ago, the only time I hear of the GAGB is if they have another rule or something. They're not a legal body so they can't offer legal advice, they're not a charity so they can't offer aid to geocachers requiring legal advice, the agreements they've negotiated seem to come from individuals who've agreed to pool their resources - but there are examples where past agreements really mean nothing when a contact moves on from their position.

The things the GAGB seems to provide effectively is a contact point and mouthpiece for police, government and p1ssed off land owners who think they're dealing with some sort of licensed group of people - a bit like hunters, fishers, canal boaters or publicans. What the those authorities probably don't realise is that most geocachers are not members, the game is global, there are serveral versions of the hobby (e.g. letterboxing) and several websites (though admittedly all infiltrated by GAGB decision-makers).

Not to mention all the unlicensed "treasure hunt" type of activities that take place by people who are not even aware of geocaching let alone the GAGB!

6.1k · July 20, 2011

Can I go back to the original title of this thread and ask - Just who are the GAGB anyway ?

Have a look for yourself here

July 20, 2011

From what I remember of the history -

Geocaching wasn't permitted on Forestry Commission land, but in some areas - certainly down here in the New Forest - an official "blind eye" was turned as long as we kept ourselves low key and didn't rock the boat.

Someone DID rock the boat, and the FC in the NF went to the trouble of "Muggling" all the existing caches, including solving the multi-caches and going and finding them. They wouldn't negotiate permissions with individual cache placers (and who can blame them?), so the GAGB was set up by a group of cachers to try to act as an umbrella body.

In those days UK caching was small enough that almost everyone caching in Britain at the time, personally knew at least one of the committee - in many cases from "before caching".

Certainly in those days the GAGB wasn't a rule making body - landowners set the rules and the GAGB did their best to negotiate downwards, but what we got was "permission on the landowners' terms, or no permission" with the GAGB committee doing their best to influence the landowners to make the conditions as much like existing Groundspeak guidelines as possible.

Whatever you may think of the current GAGB - and although I'm a member, I'm sufficiently out of touch to not have an opinion one way or the other - we wouldn't have the current blanket permission with the FC, and many other large landowners, without the work that the early GAGB did.

DISCLAIMER - I wasn't a committee member and my memory is rubbish, but I was friends with several that were, and believe what I've said here to be as close to the truth as makes no difference.

July 20, 2011

From what I remember of the history -

Geocaching wasn't permitted on Forestry Commission land, but in some areas - certainly down here in the New Forest - an official "blind eye" was turned as long as we kept ourselves low key and didn't rock the boat.

Someone DID rock the boat, and the FC in the NF went to the trouble of "Muggling" all the existing caches, including solving the multi-caches and going and finding them. They wouldn't negotiate permissions with individual cache placers (and who can blame them?), so the GAGB was set up by a group of cachers to try to act as an umbrella body.

In those days UK caching was small enough that almost everyone caching in Britain at the time, personally knew at least one of the committee - in many cases from "before caching".

Certainly in those days the GAGB wasn't a rule making body - landowners set the rules and the GAGB did their best to negotiate downwards, but what we got was "permission on the landowners' terms, or no permission" with the GAGB committee doing their best to influence the landowners to make the conditions as much like existing Groundspeak guidelines as possible.

Whatever you may think of the current GAGB - and although I'm a member, I'm sufficiently out of touch to not have an opinion one way or the other - we wouldn't have the current blanket permission with the FC, and many other large landowners, without the work that the early GAGB did.

DISCLAIMER - I wasn't a committee member and my memory is rubbish, but I was friends with several that were, and believe what I've said here to be as close to the truth as makes no difference.

I accept that the GAGB may have performed a support role in the past, I really do... but then if - as it's been asserted a number of times here - the UK requires a different set of guidelines and approach to Groundspeak (an American company), why hasn't it set itself up as an alternative site?

Sure it's great if GAGB can get a land-owner on side, but regarding land-ownership in general, there are already guidelines from GS about permissions/access etc... If a geocacher going about his business is stopped by police - well there are laws that are interpreted by the courts to deal with that. If a cache is removed by a land-owner or by a theif, the effect is the same - CO will probably have to archive it or get adequate permission. If there is a bomb alert, we have to shrug and accept that's part of the game too - with a wise word from GS to think about where you place caches sensibly.

I understand if there's a fear that at some point geocaching could get total widespread bans (which I think is mostly irrational - society would need to jump a few hurdles to get to a place like that), however at that point I simply think it would move underground. I've mentioned numerous underground hobbies in previous posts that all face the same sort of legal challenges, yet those people accept that as the nature of their game.

July 20, 2011

(though admittedly all infiltrated by GAGB decision-makers).

Are they? almost all of my caches are listed elsewhere and one of the complaints I have of the GAGB is that they claim to be independent and represent caching but actually ignore all but the GC site. I sometimes wonder just how much we would hear from them here if there wasn't a UK forum. It's all too cosy here.

They don't appear to have engaged with the only UK based listing site at all in the latest consultation. Is that really consultation? Are they really supporting the growth and enjoyment of Geocaching within the UK when they ignore the UK based listing site in their bomb scare rule making?

I suspect that if each and every GB(UK) geocacher was given the facts about what they do and what they represent there would be an overwhelming amount of support for them

So why don't they? Why don't they give us the facts? How many calls do they get on the hotline? How many landowner complaints do they get? They never tell us this so we have no idea. Hell, if they are getting tons of them even I might be more for them.

Stuey, I'm not trying to break them apart, if anything I would imagine more people than ever are looking up their website from all this discussion. I am realistic enough to know they are not going away. But these people stand up and claim to represent us. My beef has always been that they don't. They represent a few cachers.

Do you have any figures to support your claim that I'm in the minority? The GAGB have 538 active forum members. I have no idea how that translates into active members but I suspect it's a lot less. When an awful lot of cachers out there have either never heard of the GAGB or simply don't care, then I would question your claim.

If we didn't have vocal people in the world we would be saddled with all kinds of laws etc we don't want. People and organisations that want to represent people MUST be prepared to hear the voice of those that do not want it. Should I simply lie on my back and let the GAGB tickle my tummy?

1.3k · July 20, 2011

Geocaching wasn't permitted on Forestry Commission land, but in some areas - certainly down here in the New Forest - an official "blind eye" was turned as long as we kept ourselves low key and didn't rock the boat.

Someone DID rock the boat, and the FC in the NF went to the trouble of "Muggling" all the existing caches, including solving the multi-caches and going and finding them. They wouldn't negotiate permissions with individual cache placers (and who can blame them?), so the GAGB was set up by a group of cachers to try to act as an umbrella body.

don't want to be accused of being the one rocking the boat here, I rocked the boat later when the GAGB chair suggested replacing the removed, by the FC, with PMO caches,

In those days UK caching was small enough that almost everyone caching in Britain at the time, personally knew at least one of the committee - in many cases from "before caching".

This may have been true of those living in Hampshire... certainly not for those up north, or elsewhere.

Certainly in those days the GAGB wasn't a rule making body - landowners set the rules and the GAGB did their best to negotiate downwards, but what we got was "permission on the landowners' terms, or no permission" with the GAGB committee doing their best to influence the landowners to make the conditions as much like existing Groundspeak guidelines as possible.

Whatever you may think of the current GAGB - and although I'm a member, I'm sufficiently out of touch to not have an opinion one way or the other - we wouldn't have the current blanket permission with the FC, and many other large landowners, without the work that the early GAGB did.

maybe. some of the NF thing happened despite the GAGB, and with the help of 3rd parties. During the debate over PMO caches replacing the ones the FC had removed, they suddenly wanted to talk... we had help from outside caching

July 20, 2011

(though admittedly all infiltrated by GAGB decision-makers).

Are they? almost all of my caches are listed elsewhere and one of the complaints I have of the GAGB is that they claim to be independent and represent caching but actually ignore all but the GC site. I sometimes wonder just how much we would hear from them here if there wasn't a UK forum. It's all too cosy here.

They don't appear to have engaged with the only UK based listing site at all in the latest consultation. Is that really consultation? Are they really supporting the growth and enjoyment of Geocaching within the UK when they ignore the UK based listing site in their bomb scare rule making?

I suspect that if each and every GB(UK) geocacher was given the facts about what they do and what they represent there would be an overwhelming amount of support for them

So why don't they? Why don't they give us the facts? How many calls do they get on the hotline? How many landowner complaints do they get? They never tell us this so we have no idea. Hell, if they are getting tons of them even I might be more for them.

Stuey, I'm not trying to break them apart, if anything I would imagine more people than ever are looking up their website from all this discussion. I am realistic enough to know they are not going away. But these people stand up and claim to represent us. My beef has always been that they don't. They represent a few cachers.

Do you have any figures to support your claim that I'm in the minority? The GAGB have 538 active forum members. I have no idea how that translates into active members but I suspect it's a lot less. When an awful lot of cachers out there have either never heard of the GAGB or simply don't care, then I would question your claim.

If we didn't have vocal people in the world we would be saddled with all kinds of laws etc we don't want. People and organisations that want to represent people MUST be prepared to hear the voice of those that do not want it. Should I simply lie on my back and let the GAGB tickle my tummy?

Icenians, I've done a little research and what I've garnered is that many of the approvers/reviewers on other sites are GAGB members. Furthermore, by way of one example check out -

http://www.opencachi....php?page=T_O_S

Any geocache that violates the law or is contrary to the Geocaching Association of Great Britain's (G.A.G.B.) guidelines (see http://www.gagb.co.u.../guidelines.php) may be suspended or archived by the OC Team. The OC Team may suspend or archive a geocache at the request of the Police or other Civil or Military Authority.

Google searches reveal other caching sites have GAGB influence too though are not quite as explicit... whats the point of having alternative geocaching sites if the same reviewers sit on all of them and have their own set of guidelines - which they apply in a blanket fashion?

I'd genuinely be interested to hear in alternatives - who have their own guidelines whether they are looser or stricter than Groundspeak's, completely independent of the GAGB (e.g. not a GAGB member who will apply GAGB guidelines on top of the site guidelines).

1.3k · July 20, 2011

Also if you care to look, I posted the topic about the implementation of the Guideline, not a GAGB Committee Member. I also at the same tome posted the same message to all the Local UK Geocaching Forums t hat I'm a member off, Again not the GAGB Committee.

Sorry to pick up on this so late... but it is key to my feelings, and I have waited so as not to use too much "colour."

Yes, you introduced it... and you are to many of us the man. if you'd said "in light of recent events, we're introducing this rule while we work out what to do next" or similar, I'd have been fine. Telling us there was another GAGB "guideline" that we HAD to follow emphasised what several of us have been saying. The GAGB are, with reviewer compliance, able to make decisions that affect all of us, not just their members... which is against the assurances we were given when we agreed to their existence all those years ago. I was all for them, until T&J quit... and another committee member told me the members should butt out and let the committee run the show... for my money it's still that way.

Just who are the GAGB anyway?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment