Jump to content

Just who are the GAGB anyway?


Recommended Posts

(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).

the GAGB are very much pro GC.com though. GC.com username is required information to join. /So if you belong to a smaller site, you have to register here first, then join. Then you can see this one has more caches, and forget about where you started!

Link to comment

the GAGB are very much pro GC.com though. GC.com username is required information to join. /So if you belong to a smaller site, you have to register here first, then join. Then you can see this one has more caches, and forget about where you started!

 

laughing.gif And yet it appears as though the relationship is really the other way round - you have to sign up to GAGB's terms to fully enjoy gc.com. Maybe it explains why GS apparently have no problem with another organisation applying extra rules as they see fit.

 

Actually I don't know why that made me laugh, it should cause concern.

Link to comment

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.

I said that "I suspect that..." therefore it is only my opinion. What I do see is a very few individuals in this forum who are critical of the GAGB and what they do. These are what I am referring to as a minority.

 

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?

I think so, yes. You should try it, tummy tickling isn't so bad :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Hi TeamFitz, I'll not quote all that :)

 

To be fair to opencaching.org, they tell you from the start that they follow the GAGB guidelines. Them's the ones the site adopted. I know not of any other.

 

Both Opencaching.com and Terracaching effectively allow anyone to be a reviewer, OK TC the cacher chooses their own reviewers, but the effect is much the same. I don't know if GAGB members cache on garmins site but I guess there are some and they probably have their say but have the same weight as any non member. On TC the cacher gets to choose their own reviewers but still anyone can become a reviewer there simply by sponsoring someone. On Navicache the reviewer is one man and I doubt he knows anything of the GAGB.

 

So, yes it is possible for the GAGB to have influence on the other listing sites but I haven't seen it and certainly not in a way that could be all powerful in the way they are becoming here.

Link to comment

I'm still confused about what the GAGB is

 

I pay my money to be a member of Groundspeak

 

Can someone point me to a place on the Groundspeak website, Geocaching.com, where it tells me about the GAGB ?

 

I gave you a link to the GAGB website, where it tells you who they are and what they do. There won't be anything on geocaching.com about the GAGB.

Link to comment

I'm still confused about what the GAGB is

 

I pay my money to be a member of Groundspeak

 

Can someone point me to a place on the Groundspeak website, Geocaching.com, where it tells me about the GAGB ?

 

I guess the GAGB are like the British Mountaineering Council is to climbers or the British Canoe Union is to canoeing. Both those organisations represent a sport, I'm not saying caching is a sport but you get my drift.

 

Groundspeak run a listing site for caches.

 

Now that might sound like a good thing, I'm a member of both those organisations. I can go out, buy a canoe, pay my fee to the broads authourity and paddle away to my hearts content. No guideline the BCU makes needs affect me. The broads auth control the water and set the rules. I can also pay for BCU membership, get cut price access to the broads and lumped in with that many other rivers without getting separate tickets, and also, ON TOP OF THE BROADS AUTHOURITY rules VOLOUNTARILY abide by the BCU guidelines.

 

In short, in canoeing I can choose, on GC I can't. Apart from taking my caches elsewhere.

Link to comment

I'm still confused about what the GAGB is

 

I pay my money to be a member of Groundspeak

 

Can someone point me to a place on the Groundspeak website, Geocaching.com, where it tells me about the GAGB ?

 

I guess the GAGB are like the British Mountaineering Council is to climbers or the British Canoe Union is to canoeing. Both those organisations represent a sport, I'm not saying caching is a sport but you get my drift.

 

Groundspeak run a listing site for caches.

 

Now that might sound like a good thing, I'm a member of both those organisations. I can go out, buy a canoe, pay my fee to the broads authourity and paddle away to my hearts content. No guideline the BCU makes needs affect me. The broads auth control the water and set the rules. I can also pay for BCU membership, get cut price access to the broads and lumped in with that many other rivers without getting separate tickets, and also, ON TOP OF THE BROADS AUTHOURITY rules VOLOUNTARILY abide by the BCU guidelines.

 

In short, in canoeing I can choose, on GC I can't. Apart from taking my caches elsewhere.

 

So in short, we'd like them to say:

 

"Here's what we recommend, what we ask our members to do and we'd appreciate if all geocachers follow these guidelines on top of the standard one's provided by Groundspeak...."

 

Rather than what the general message is now which is:

 

"GAGB have decided this, and now Groundsp^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H GAGB reviewers will be implementing these guidelines for all geocaches published through geocaching.com - Oh and by the way if you don't read the forums and are not a member of the GAGB then you'll only find out when we reject your cache!"*

 

*and Groundspeak doesn't officially endorse us but they back their reviewers, who just so happen to be working to GAGB guidli^H^H^H^H^H^H rules. You may appeal if you wish but don't count on going against us.

 

Link to comment

What I'm curious about is what Groundspeaks take on this is. (paid lackeys in the USA, not our local friendly volunteer reviewers.)

I'd like to know what they do when things like 'wetherby' happen stateside and if they bring out new guidelines when things like this happen.

Any lackeys out there wanna chip in?

Link to comment

I think some of you folks are being a bit hard on the GAGB. They evidently do what they can to facilitate landowner permissions, which can only be a good thing.

 

Of course the kneejerk reaction to Wetherby was Pythonesque in its stupidity. But that's really the by-product of the usual combination of media-generated hysteria and PC Plod getting above himself as usual.

 

The police have absolutely no authority to 'ban' geocaching. Their job is to enforce the law, not to invent dimwit restrictions on civil liberties at the behest of the tabloids, though admittedly they do need reminded of this at times.

 

Best thing to do is to carry on regardless, and ignore the whole circus.

Link to comment

I guess the GAGB are like the British Mountaineering Council is to climbers or the British Canoe Union is to canoeing. Both those organisations represent a sport, I'm not saying caching is a sport but you get my drift.

The BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB. Climbing is an activity, like caching, that can't be banned or regulated. Few climbers are in the BMC, and a lot have never heard of it.

 

So all the BMC does is work on behalf of climbing in general; by telling landowners to allow access (I mean negotiating access), working with landowners to maintain access agreements for sensitive areas, providing guidebooks and insurance so we can find climbs and are protected from claims for damages or from expenses caused by climbing accidents. Plus, providing news and information about climbing and mountaineering (and a lot of other useful stuff).

 

AFAIK it doesn't issue guidelines or rules, and climbers would immediately tell them what to do should they try. They are also very reluctant to help landowners with any ban, unless it's limited or temporary.

 

I guess the GAGB do all that sort of thing as well. ;-)

Link to comment

I guess the GAGB are like the British Mountaineering Council is to climbers or the British Canoe Union is to canoeing. Both those organisations represent a sport, I'm not saying caching is a sport but you get my drift.

The BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB. Climbing is an activity, like caching, that can't be banned or regulated. Few climbers are in the BMC, and a lot have never heard of it.

 

So all the BMC does is work on behalf of climbing in general; by telling landowners to allow access (I mean negotiating access), working with landowners to maintain access agreements for sensitive areas, providing guidebooks and insurance so we can find climbs and are protected from claims for damages or from expenses caused by climbing accidents. Plus, providing news and information about climbing and mountaineering (and a lot of other useful stuff).

 

AFAIK it doesn't issue guidelines or rules, and climbers would immediately tell them what to do should they try. They are also very reluctant to help landowners with any ban, unless it's limited or temporary.

 

I guess the GAGB do all that sort of thing as well. ;-)

 

Strange choice of comparisons

The British Mountaineering Council

www.thebmc.co.uk/ - CachedWorking for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers in England and Wales. Features news, events, area updates, membership information and travel insurance.

 

AFAIK British Canoe Union doesn't negotiate in Scotland where access to waterways is a right .

 

Isn't joining these organisations for providing a service? organisation of competitions and providing public liability insurance ??

 

Link to comment

I guess the GAGB are like the British Mountaineering Council is to climbers or the British Canoe Union is to canoeing. Both those organisations represent a sport, I'm not saying caching is a sport but you get my drift.

The BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB. Climbing is an activity, like caching, that can't be banned or regulated. Few climbers are in the BMC, and a lot have never heard of it.

 

So all the BMC does is work on behalf of climbing in general; by telling landowners to allow access (I mean negotiating access), working with landowners to maintain access agreements for sensitive areas, providing guidebooks and insurance so we can find climbs and are protected from claims for damages or from expenses caused by climbing accidents. Plus, providing news and information about climbing and mountaineering (and a lot of other useful stuff).

 

AFAIK it doesn't issue guidelines or rules, and climbers would immediately tell them what to do should they try. They are also very reluctant to help landowners with any ban, unless it's limited or temporary.

 

I guess the GAGB do all that sort of thing as well. ;-)

Not quite true, The BMC is well known in climbing circles and many climbers / mountaineers use their insurance, as the de-facto policy, especially when going on overseas trips.

 

The BMC is a nationally recognized body by both Government, Landowners and other Authorities, it also receives grant aide in the form of Sports Council funding and from the National Lottery.

The BMC has paid staff.

Your claim that climbers are protected from damages or climbing accidents is not the case, like all insurance there are strict criteria for claims on damage or accidents, the main use of a BMC policy is to provide cover by emergency services outside of the UK (Mountain rescue)

The BMC were key in the English OAA & OAL, this stems back to the 1930's with the mass trespass on many moors

The BMC often makes policy, some of it is actually legally binding, as they work with local and national bodies on creating some of these.

The BMC has a large active conservation project, which aims to protect the countryside of England and Wales.

The BMC does not represent Scotland, which has its own body The Scottish Mountaineering Club.

 

I believe that none of these functions are covered by the GAGB, in the depth that the BMC offer, and many are not offered at all.

 

So here is my slant on the GAGB.

 

It's a none governmental quango, which probably has now outgrown its usefulness, as it has failed to mature into a more professional organisation, by not actively seeking funding from many sources, and not becoming a full-time organisation, with at least a handful of employees. It truly is time that we made a new national body, which has aspirations along the same path the BMC have taken.

Link to comment

In general terms the BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB (i.e. not making rules for climbers / geocachers to obey, but looking after the interests of the climbers / geocachers), but doesn't do its job (for various reasons, mostly because it's all unpaid volunteer work). I didn't mean that it's exactly the same, and I know that the geographical area isn't the same. That's not relevant.

 

But hence the questions about its role. I'd like to see it start to work for geocachers in similar vein to the BMC. Obviously some funding would be required first, perhaps off the back of the Wetherby incident publicity.

 

There's a lot of useful things it could be doing.

An example would be to negotiate an insurance policy against claims from landowners, other geocachers and to provide advice and legal assistance if you're unlucky enough to be charged with a geocaching-related offence (I have to assume that this is what happened in Wetherby as we've not been told what the offence was).

Or how about an online guide to placing a cache, along with advice on where NOT to place one, how to get it listed, and how to make it get on everyone's favourites list.

Like the BMC, you could ignore the body in general and not be a member, but they'd be there doing useful work and not interfering with the casual cacher.

Link to comment

In general terms the BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB (i.e. not making rules for climbers / geocachers to obey, but looking after the interests of the climbers / geocachers), but doesn't do its job (for various reasons, mostly because it's all unpaid volunteer work). I didn't mean that it's exactly the same, and I know that the geographical area isn't the same. That's not relevant.

 

But hence the questions about its role. I'd like to see it start to work for geocachers in similar vein to the BMC. Obviously some funding would be required first, perhaps off the back of the Wetherby incident publicity.

 

There's a lot of useful things it could be doing.

An example would be to negotiate an insurance policy against claims from landowners, other geocachers and to provide advice and legal assistance if you're unlucky enough to be charged with a geocaching-related offence (I have to assume that this is what happened in Wetherby as we've not been told what the offence was).

Or how about an online guide to placing a cache, along with advice on where NOT to place one, how to get it listed, and how to make it get on everyone's favourites list.

Like the BMC, you could ignore the body in general and not be a member, but they'd be there doing useful work and not interfering with the casual cacher.

 

I like your thinking. it certainly sounds like an organisation I'd prefer to join... one that actually sticks up for geocachers, rather than cowing to anyone with a boot to stick in.

 

However, in order to win over people like me let alone secure funding, I would need to see them announce a large and public policy change. A retraction of sorts for the direction which they've been headed. I'd simply like to see them not react to stuff like the bomb incident other than provide support for the individuals involved.

 

Has anyone contacted the BMC about this man yet? - http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/%E2%80%98spiderdan%E2%80%99-fights-charges-in-san-francisco-court/ Has the BMC introduced new rules for all climbers to sign before climbing? Is he damaging the sport?

Link to comment

I like your thinking. it certainly sounds like an organisation I'd prefer to join... one that actually sticks up for geocachers, rather than cowing to anyone with a boot to stick in.

I would also be interested in joining such an organisation. Would any cachers like to start one up?

Link to comment

In general terms the BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB (i.e. not making rules for climbers / geocachers to obey, but looking after the interests of the climbers / geocachers), but doesn't do its job (for various reasons, mostly because it's all unpaid volunteer work). I didn't mean that it's exactly the same, and I know that the geographical area isn't the same. That's not relevant.

 

But hence the questions about its role. I'd like to see it start to work for geocachers in similar vein to the BMC. Obviously some funding would be required first, perhaps off the back of the Wetherby incident publicity.

 

There's a lot of useful things it could be doing.

An example would be to negotiate an insurance policy against claims from landowners, other geocachers and to provide advice and legal assistance if you're unlucky enough to be charged with a geocaching-related offence (I have to assume that this is what happened in Wetherby as we've not been told what the offence was).

Or how about an online guide to placing a cache, along with advice on where NOT to place one, how to get it listed, and how to make it get on everyone's favourites list.

Like the BMC, you could ignore the body in general and not be a member, but they'd be there doing useful work and not interfering with the casual cacher.

HH, the BMC do make rules some of which are legally binding, as they sit on many Local, Regional and National bodies, and act within the interest of walkers, mountaineers and climbers, but not always, as their conservation role often conflicts with the members interests; but generally they give good alternatives to things such as closed footpath agreements.

 

I would think a "New" GAGB with the power to veto caching areas such as SSSI would be a good thing, but we wait and see

 

Link to comment

 

I would think a "New" GAGB with the power to veto caching areas such as SSSI would be a good thing,

 

 

No it wouldn't, for the simple reason that it is in the very nature of collective bodies to start vetoing things that they have no right, legal or otherwise, to veto. Caches in SSSIs being a perfect example; many SSSIs are eminently suitable for caching.

Link to comment

I would think a "New" GAGB with the power to veto caching areas such as SSSI would be a good thing,

 

 

No it wouldn't, for the simple reason that it is in the very nature of collective bodies to start vetoing things that they have no right, legal or otherwise, to veto. Caches in SSSIs being a perfect example; many SSSIs are eminently suitable for caching.

 

So give me an example of an SSSI which is perfect for caching, where the introduction of a metal, or plastic container which starts degrading from day one, does note have an affect the local ecology either Geology, Zoology or Vegetation.

 

May I take the trouble that most Ammo Cans are high in concentrations of DU, and most plastics break down into micro particles which can affect hormone production, rust from iron based containers and Aluminium oxide from Aluminium containers alter soil PH, and that has a direct and usually permanent affect, even in a very small area

 

These bodies do not "Veto", they protect, and that way the hobby / sport can flourish as it will become more respected by the outside world.

 

Link to comment

Edinburgh has caches in two areas that are SSSI and all of the caches have full permission to be there. I am quite sure that the experts who allowed them to be there, know whether they are dangerous or not.

 

As for most ammo cans having high concentration of DU, what a load of ****. DU is only used in armour piercing rounds. The ammo cans that you tend to see in caching are small arms ammo cans. Which do not have any DU what so ever.

Link to comment

So give me an example of an SSSI which is perfect for caching, where the introduction of a metal, or plastic container which starts degrading from day one, does note have an affect the local ecology either Geology, Zoology or Vegetation.

 

May I take the trouble that most Ammo Cans are high in concentrations of DU, and most plastics break down into micro particles which can affect hormone production, rust from iron based containers and Aluminium oxide from Aluminium containers alter soil PH, and that has a direct and usually permanent affect, even in a very small area

 

These bodies do not "Veto", they protect, and that way the hobby / sport can flourish as it will become more respected by the outside world.

 

 

'Veto' is your word, not mine.

 

I won't pretend to know the slightest thing about chemistry (though neither do you, I suspect, ther than whatever gems you've gleaned from the Anarchists' Cookbook), but I know of several caches on SSSIs where the land management officer has made it clear he has no worries whatsoever about environmental damage to the SSSI being caused by caching. I reckon that Scottish Natural Heritage, unlike you, know what they're talking about.

Link to comment

Edinburgh has caches in two areas that are SSSI and all of the caches have full permission to be there. I am quite sure that the experts who allowed them to be there, know whether they are dangerous or not.

 

As for most ammo cans having high concentration of DU, what a load of ****. DU is only used in armour piercing rounds. The ammo cans that you tend to see in caching are small arms ammo cans. Which do not have any DU what so ever.

Totally wrong, all RAF ammo cans of above 9mm usually have had a DU rounds in them, but hey what would you know, you were never in the RAF.

Link to comment

 

I won't pretend to know the slightest thing about chemistry (though neither do you, I suspect, ther than whatever gems you've gleaned from the Anarchists' Cookbook),

 

 

Well apart from my 'O' Level A, 'A' Level A, Degree, Masters Degree in Surface Chemistry, and my PHD on London Forces, I guess my chemistry knowledge stopped there.

 

 

Link to comment

Edinburgh has caches in two areas that are SSSI and all of the caches have full permission to be there. I am quite sure that the experts who allowed them to be there, know whether they are dangerous or not.

 

As for most ammo cans having high concentration of DU, what a load of ****. DU is only used in armour piercing rounds. The ammo cans that you tend to see in caching are small arms ammo cans. Which do not have any DU what so ever.

Totally wrong, all RAF ammo cans of above 9mm usually have had a DU rounds in them, but hey what would you know, you were never in the RAF.

You're right, I never was in the RAF, and glad I wasn't. :ph34r: But as far as my knowledge goes, I did spend 13 years in the army, 8 of those years were spent serving on main battle tanks, which do use DU rounds.

 

I'll admit I don't know whether anything larger than a 9mm in the RAF have had DU round in them or not. What you fail to state is that DU rounds are only used in real combat situations, regardless of the service using them. That means that all of the said ammo cans are opened in an operational theatre, such as Afghanistan. I'll admit I don't know what happens to the empty containers, but I would have thought the cost of shipping them back to the UK just to be sold off to army surplus stores is likely to be non effective.

 

Also after the first Gulf war the MOD had bad press about the DU rounds that were used, I am sure they wouldn't dream of selling contaminated containers to the open market. Far too much of a back lash for them to do that.

Link to comment

 

I won't pretend to know the slightest thing about chemistry (though neither do you, I suspect, ther than whatever gems you've gleaned from the Anarchists' Cookbook),

 

 

Well apart from my 'O' Level A, 'A' Level A, Degree, Masters Degree in Surface Chemistry, and my PHD on London Forces, I guess my chemistry knowledge stopped there.

Go on shut us up and scan your certificates and post them here. Shouldn't take you to long to do that........... <_<

Link to comment

Well apart from my 'O' Level A, 'A' Level A, Degree, Masters Degree in Surface Chemistry, and my PHD on London Forces, I guess my chemistry knowledge stopped there.

 

 

That's nice. Did you buy a new Rolex and pay the ransome for a kidnapped Nigerian government minister at the same time?

 

I guess it's hardly surprising, given the general bee-in-the-bonnet tone peculiar to your posts, that you think you know better than SNH. :unsure:

Link to comment

 

That's nice. Did you buy a new Rolex and pay the ransome for a kidnapped Nigerian government minister at the same time?

 

I guess it's hardly surprising, given the general bee-in-the-bonnet tone peculiar to your posts, that you think you know better than SNH. :unsure:

Bee-in-the-bonnet? Have you read the tone of your postings, they are aggressive towards me, without justification; the first part clearly demonstrates this.

Link to comment

Is it usual in these forums, for certain miscreants to drag them off topic? I guess Trolls are a hazard on the internet.

Yes it is, dreadful isn't it? I suppose that is your way of saying you can't actually prove you have the said qualifications to back up your argument?

I have no intention of intention any thing which could be used for illegal purposes, the black market is full of falsified Degree certificates, many of which had an official source. It's like me asking for your Passport.

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