Jump to content

Updated "Urban" guideline


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I locked that thread because it went out of control. Like I said, feel free to have a discussion about the guideline. Just don't get into the sniping again.

 

Anyway, back on topic. To answer your question, the UK reviewers are appyling the guideline. The same way we apply the GAGB guidelines on SSSI, dry stone walls, churches/cemetries, war memorials and railway stations. These are not Groundspeak guidelines yet noone questions the validity of the GAGB when we apply them. I admit the new urban guideline was rushed. I see some more work has been done on it. As with any guidelines (even GSP ones), changes are made all the time and they're not always perfect. Why not get involved in that process????? GSP have a feedback forum for situations like this. Maybe you should approach the GAGB directly with your concerns and hopefully we will have a situation that will be acceptable to most (and hopefully you).

 

Regards

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

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

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

Edited by geohatter
Link to comment

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm asking if Groundspeak is applying the updated guideline. That is: no requirement for a statement that the cache complies; no requirement for a clear box; and a requirement for a hint. I ask because in the last seven days (i.e. since the guideline changed) I see caches which carry the statement and which don''t have a clear and unambiguous hint.

 

I didn't involve myself in any "sniping": I was monitoring the thread to see if my original question was answered. And I think you'll find by reading the various threads on the subject that many people question the validity of GAGB, but that wasn't - and isn't - my point: I'm concerned only about the application of the updated guideline. GAGB are to be applauded for listening to comments but it's all wasted if Groundspeak doesn't apply the result.

Link to comment

I'm asking if Groundspeak is applying the updated guideline.

 

Well, since the reviewing team are representatives of Groundspeak then yes they are applying the guideline. However, it will not form part of the guidelines in the knowledge books.

 

That said, the Groundspeak Wiki goes into more detail on the local guidelines and links to the GAGB guidelines. This page is managed by the UK reviewer team and we have the support of GS.

 

I hope that answers your question. If not I'll be happy to help you further.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

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

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

Link to comment

I'm asking if Groundspeak is applying the updated guideline.

 

Well, since the reviewing team are representatives of Groundspeak then yes they are applying the guideline.

I'm afraid that doesn't actually make anything clearer. We know you are applying the guideline. What Alan was asking was, are you applying the ORIGINAL guideline, or the UPDATED guideline?

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

<snip>

That said, the Groundspeak Wiki ...

</snip>

 

Wait... wah? That's new! And I see it makes extensive reference to GAGB!

 

It's been a short while since I last published a cache but is this on the publishing form? If not, why not? I can't find any link to it on the front page of the site. This is a bit of a game-changer for me -- It's quite clear from this that Groundspeak endorses the GAGB and it's guidelines - yet it appears to be buried away from mainstream eyes... and in all the discussions we've recently had not one reviewer has thought to offer this link in defence of the GAGB.... why? Is there a reason this has not been shown so far?

 

I really think that Groundspeak should provide this link on the cache publishing form. They clearly endorse GAGB as their representative in the UK and it's a little disingenious to pretend that it's not the case.

 

It's also quite clear from this that for the UK at least, Groundspeak is not providing all the guidelines that are to be adhered to!

 

With this kind of nonsense I welcome tech-based startups like Gowalla and recently Munzees mentioned elsewhere... and perhaps, hopefully, other alternatives to the game that are simple, clear and don't feel the need to start regional committees and institutions in order to play. If the current rate of innovation continues I imagine at some point Groundspeak will have some real competition, from a startup that is not tied down by invisible rules and rules that are not really rules but really are....

Link to comment

I'm afraid that doesn't actually make anything clearer. We know you are applying the guideline. What Alan was asking was, are you applying the ORIGINAL guideline, or the UPDATED guideline?

Quite so. And if the latter then why am I still seeing recently-placed caches with the statement (original guideline) yet without an appropriate hint (updated guideline). In other words, it says it conforms yet doesn't. A classic demonstration, as was pointed out in the original thread, that putting a statement on a cache page is meaningless.

Link to comment

With this kind of nonsense I welcome tech-based startups like Gowalla and recently Munzees mentioned elsewhere... and perhaps, hopefully, other alternatives to the game that are simple, clear and don't feel the need to start regional committees and institutions in order to play. If the current rate of innovation continues I imagine at some point Groundspeak will have some real competition, from a startup that is not tied down by invisible rules and rules that are not really rules but really are....

 

I'd never heard of those, but do like the look of Munzees & have signed up for it - there are a few round here & in London, and I may even hide a couple! It looks hard & fast, no logs for people to complain about, points system for the number lovers, easy to hide & clear rules....

 

I do think that Geocaching is in real danger of stagnating, it's becoming mundane, a comfortable "maiden aunt" - go somewhere, have a quick look at the GPS, log another micro. Go for a walk, open the tupperware, sign the book.

 

I still enjoy it, but only if it takes me somewhere interesting, if I'm going there anyway I probably won't bother with the cache. I ignored a cache that was 300m away on my holiday just gone, we'd climbed up the large hill, were walking across the moorland - I could see the shooting cabin it was based in, but there was absolutely no point in going over there just to sign the log as it added nothing to the walking experience. A few years ago I'd have been haring across the heather to get there!

 

Even if I had bothered with this one, someone would probably have taken exception to one of my abbreviations.

 

I will still do it if I'm right next to one, but I think the time is coming soon to say "Thanks, but time to evolve".

 

C

Link to comment

I did think that the Wetherby bomb was the first bomb squad geocache in the UK, until I bumped into a couple of cachers at the MEGA camping who recognised us as we had done the stages for their multi, but not yet found the final. I had emailed them to confirm our coords.

 

They told us that the cache, Posh Cache in the City in Peterborough, had an interesting past before they adopted it. If you scroll down to the NM log on 10th March, 2007:

"Found by Ebandflo, muggled by the town hall, cordoned off by the police, blown up by the bomb squad at 1930 hours 10th of March 2007. Sorry!"

 

Aparently as it was hidden at the town hall and the mayor was there it was suspected as being a bomb. Another example of a bad place to hide a cache! There wasn't so much fuss that time though, I'm guessing because the BBC didn't get hold of the story. :unsure:

 

Just thought I'd share that...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...