How do people feel about the GAGB “guidelines” for memorials.

[patdhill]

I did an FTF today on a puzzle where the final cache container was hidden on a memorial to someone that died in March 1914. My original log was deleted by the cache owner as he said it made it look like he thoughtlessly placed a cache on a war memorial. I actually never mentioned it was on a memorial at all but I've relogged the FTF with the offending bit removed. I raised my concern with the reviewer who didn’t want to get drawn into the rights and wrongs of the cache placement.

 

The GAGB “guidelines” say the below which I think applies as the cache is located just over 10m from the main war memorial and is physically located on another memorial in the same garden.

4 – Where a war memorial or other memorial to the dead is the focal point of a clearly defined precinct, plaza, memorial garden or like surrounding area, no physical caches or physical cache stages should be placed within that area without specific written permission of the relevant custodial authority

 

The below log was written by a reviewer on a cache that didn’t seem that much farther away from another memorial. I liked that cache as it took me to some where I’d never have been if not for caching.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=08436082-597b-4dc0-b089-afb5c4bc7aa8

 

So my questions are how do people feel about searching for caches near memorials and why have “guidelines” which can be ignored at will.

 

The more I think about it I should have just looked at the location and walked away. I think having known relatives from both wars makes me feel a lot more strongly about this one.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I think, those that were already placed were Grandfathered.

 

It sounds like the CO is aware and would rather it not be mentioned in the logs... So, time to move it?

 

However, as an Unknown/Puzzle cache, the CO may have thought you gave too much away?

Edited October 31, 2011 by Bear and Ragged

[patdhill]

I think, those that were already placed were Grandfathered.

 

It sounds like the CO is aware and would rather it not be mentioned in the logs... So, time to move it?

 

However, as an Unknown/Puzzle cache, the CO may have thought you gave too much away?

I never mentioned in my log that the cache was on a memorial at all I just said I wouldn't have put one where it was.

[+drdick&vick]

I did an FTF today on a puzzle where the final cache container was hidden on a memorial to someone that died in March 1914. My original log was deleted by the cache owner as he said it made it look like he thoughtlessly placed a cache on a war memorial. I actually never mentioned it was on a memorial at all but I've relogged the FTF with the offending bit removed. I raised my concern with the reviewer who didn’t want to get drawn into the rights and wrongs of the cache placement.

 

The GAGB “guidelines” say the below which I think applies as the cache is located just over 10m from the main war memorial and is physically located on another memorial in the same garden.

4 – Where a war memorial or other memorial to the dead is the focal point of a clearly defined precinct, plaza, memorial garden or like surrounding area, no physical caches or physical cache stages should be placed within that area without specific written permission of the relevant custodial authority

 

The below log was written by a reviewer on a cache that didn’t seem that much farther away from another memorial. I liked that cache as it took me to some where I’d never have been if not for caching.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=08436082-597b-4dc0-b089-afb5c4bc7aa8

 

So my questions are how do people feel about searching for caches near memorials and why have “guidelines” which can be ignored at will.

 

The more I think about it I should have just looked at the location and walked away. I think having known relatives from both wars makes me feel a lot more strongly about this one.

 

Because guidleines are just that not rules,if people wish to disregard them then that is their right.

Personally I would not hide a cache within a memorial garden but would bring people to it as part of a Multi.

 

THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW, not a GAGB Committee one.

[+Pharisee]

 

Because guidleines are just that not rules,if people wish to disregard them then that is their right.

Personally I would not hide a cache within a memorial garden but would bring people to it as part of a Multi.

 

THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW, not a GAGB Committee one.

 

But they're not, really, are they.... Guidelines are being turned into hard and fast rules and new rules are being added all the time. The reviewer in question states:-

"we have decided that such caches now require permission from the relevant custodial authority for the memorial."

"WE HAVE DECIDED...." An arbitrary decision, on the face of it, made by a group of people who really have no right to make that sort of decision. Surely, their role is to implement the published 'guidlines' as laid down by Groundspeak, not to make up their own rules as they go along.

I know that the reviewers sycophantic supporters will come along, as they always do, and say what a wonderful job they're doing for no reward and I agree... we do need reviewers but reviewers that work within the published guidelines that everyone can see and understand. When they start creating their own 'laws', with no appeal, we're starting out on a very slippery slope that will ultimately be the ruin of the game.

Just my views....

 

[dodgydaved]

 

Because guidleines are just that not rules,if people wish to disregard them then that is their right.

Personally I would not hide a cache within a memorial garden but would bring people to it as part of a Multi.

 

THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW, not a GAGB Committee one.

 

But they're not, really, are they.... Guidelines are being turned into hard and fast rules and new rules are being added all the time. The reviewer in question states:-

"we have decided that such caches now require permission from the relevant custodial authority for the memorial."

"WE HAVE DECIDED...." An arbitrary decision, on the face of it, made by a group of people who really have no right to make that sort of decision. Surely, their role is to implement the published 'guidlines' as laid down by Groundspeak, not to make up their own rules as they go along.

I know that the reviewers sycophantic supporters will come along, as they always do, and say what a wonderful job they're doing for no reward and I agree... we do need reviewers but reviewers that work within the published guidelines that everyone can see and understand. When they start creating their own 'laws', with no appeal, we're starting out on a very slippery slope that will ultimately be the ruin of the game.

Just my views....

 

 

John, I couldn't agree more, I remember a certain reviewer (some 7 or 8 years ago mind) who made a similarly arbitrary judgement about a glass container - and was very soundly smacked in these columns for making this decision.

 

However it was inevitable that as the game became more and more mainstream it would have to become more and more regulated. Like it or not, as more and more landowners became aware of the game there would be a need for more stringent permission requirements. I am not sanctioning this; I don't like it, but I can see why it happened.

 

I've just spent e couple of days in Menorca. I only attempted 2 caches. One was very obviously on private property and I would not climb over the wall to retrieve it because of this (although I was told the Spanish trespass laws are very different to our own.) The other was on what we would call a site of historic interest. I did have a go at it - but was drawing far too much attention and so gave up. Both caches were found several times during our stay.

 

Was this a factor of my increasing age and reluctance to take risks, or as the result of my education, indoctrination caused by the over-regulation (IMHO) of the rules ( you are correct many of them are not now, and never have been merely guidelines.)

 

Don't get me wrong - I am not reviewer knocking, in the current climate they often appear to be on a hiding to nothing - but I am sad about it.

 

Strangely enough I remember, years ago, dabbling in CB radio - that quickly seemed to phase itself out with over-regulation, legality, licensing and mobile phones!!

[patdhill]

I decided to delete my new log that didn't have the comment the CO objected to on and the cache is now on my ignore list.

 

In reply to Pharisee I very much support the reviewers but in the case of these two very similar caches one has been disabled when no one specifically had complained about the location that I can see, everyone in their logs seem to like it. However the other that I put my FTF log on has been deemed ok even though someone "me" has complained about the location.

[+metal-bijou]

There are really three points here as I see them.

 

Firstly the guidelines; the guidelines provide a safety net for us, it's great they can be tailored to our needs and not meet a standard for another country only. I once wanted to set a flashmob event in Hungry to meet local cachers but there the guideline is that events should not be that short. Flashmob events here appear to thrive. I digress. My point is that I feel we need the guidelines to show to the rest of society that we are respectful and appropriate e.g. micro containers in London being the preference by the Met. I’m sure the arbitrary nature of the decisions is carefully thought about and is open to appeal if individuals thought the decisions were not appropriate. Ok some decisions may go too far in my mind and others not far enough but thankfully I don’t have to draw the line within the grey area of everyone’s happiness. The good news is that these decisions are made by humans and while sometimes you can get them on a bad day, you can also benefit when they take circumstances into consideration.

 

Secondly is the comment within the log; frankly I agree with you that you should be able to put what you like, preferably if it’s constructive. But here I sit on the fence a little as only recently someone put a 100% spoiler in a log to one of my caches so I did ask them if they wouldn’t mind either editing or encrypting. Up to them as it is their log. They were good enough to encrypt their log. Personally if I was leaving constructive comments for a future finder I wouldn’t delete my points (I probably would edit to water down or encrypt if asked) but I would leave deleting the log to the CO if they still didn’t agree with my compromise. Then I think it’s appropriate to have a blank log as you did at least sign the logsheet.

 

Thirdly is the placement around war memorials or rather memorials in general; this probably also has two sides, the permission and the placement in principle. The permission is easy for me, either the CO has and has informed the reviewer or the reviewer didn’t realise the significance of where the final was placed. However here I side with the reviewer and the CO with the assumption that permission has been gained. I once had a cache that had been given permission by the local farmer and while not on a permissive path the farmer allowed walkers to roam. There was a sign to say not a permissive path for legal reasons to stop the field being used to officially connect from one side to the other. A finder complained (after signing the log themselves) and then the debate started. So to me the act was of an internet troll as they set light to the wick and then left the conversation but happy with their smiley. Thankfully the cache was allowed to stay but unnecessary effort was required to justify a situation that already had permission. There has got to be trust in the CO and more importantly between the CO and the reviewer about the correct due diligence.

 

Regarding the placement in principle, I have found caches that have specifically taken you to a war memorial. Often included are memorials that you would drive by and not really notice. The cache maybe tucked to one side but to me as long as it’s placed respectfully and perhaps with a blatant hint to stop you foraging then it get’s my approval. We will remember them and I’m always humbled at the sheer number who fell all over the country. I agree that if not able to be easily respectful then a multi is the perfect balance and to be honest my favourite “we will remember them .. “ cache is a multi setup by a friend after visiting many war memorials in Scotland.

 

Ok so that’s four points really, opps.

[Deceangi]

I decided to delete my new log that didn't have the comment the CO objected to on and the cache is now on my ignore list.

 

In reply to Pharisee I very much support the reviewers but in the case of these two very similar caches one has been disabled when no one specifically had complained about the location that I can see, everyone in their logs seem to like it. However the other that I put my FTF log on has been deemed ok even though someone "me" has complained about the location.

 

Sorry you do not see any discussions between Cache Owner and Reviewer Pre-Publication, so are presuming that the Reviewer did not do a thorough investigation. We rely on information on the Cache page, Maps, MAGIC. Google Satellite/Street View. And also information provided by the Cache Owner to any query made.

 

 

Deci

[patdhill]

I decided to delete my new log that didn't have the comment the CO objected to on and the cache is now on my ignore list.

 

In reply to Pharisee I very much support the reviewers but in the case of these two very similar caches one has been disabled when no one specifically had complained about the location that I can see, everyone in their logs seem to like it. However the other that I put my FTF log on has been deemed ok even though someone "me" has complained about the location.

 

Sorry you do not see any discussions between Cache Owner and Reviewer Pre-Publication, so are presuming that the Reviewer did not do a thorough investigation. We rely on information on the Cache page, Maps, MAGIC. Google Satellite/Street View. And also information provided by the Cache Owner to any query made.

 

 

Deci

I'm not saying the reviewer didn't do a proper investigation at all, I emailed him about it and that was the one of the things I said. I raised it with him as even with the best intentions it is easy to miss caches that maybe in questionable places. Getting back to the guidelines though using Streetview one of the tools you mention you can clearly see the cache is in the grounds of a war memorial, not attached to the war memroial but to another memorial not related to the war. Going by the GAGB "guidelines" this should seem to require landowner permission, I'd have expected if this was recieved then as customary it would be mentioned in the cache listing page. As this is not confidential information I can't see a reason why you should not be able to supply it if it indeed was gained. If not then I'd expect someone to say this is allowed because "reason" and the Sheffield Cholera Monument needs it because "reason”. They are caches around the same distance from a prominent memorial so I can't see why different rules apply.

[patdhill]

On a sort of side note I got an email this morning from another cacher asking for help finding the cache. He'd searched for 20 minutes then the police turned up and asked him what he was up to. He had to go through the explanation of geocaching which they accepted and he speant a further 10 minutes looking with no luck. Obviously someone reported him acting a bit odd near a war memorial and called the cops. As well as raising the suitability of caches near memorials it's back to the urban caching guidelines which I know have been cover on this forum many times.

 

Oh and I’ve told him I not offering any help as I don’t think the cache is in a suitable location and I’m not going to encourage people to go looking for it.

[+Palujia]

This could easily turn into another hot potato ! With the current news regarding the defacing and stealing of metal from memorials and the furore regarding Rules versus Guidelines. I personally like war memorials, and have visited lots - finding the names of relatives from the Great War in my ancestor research, and even just just quietly paying respects. The placing of caches within the vicinity often encourages people to look and remember - but again, with the current news, no doubt someone will call the Police, reporting an innocent cacher rooting around a memorial,and Geocaching will get more bad publicity. I don't intend to get arrested whilst searching for a cache, so will not be looking for any round memorials for a while.

Again, this is my personal opinion, and not in any way associated with GAGB

[patdhill]

This could easily turn into another hot potato ! With the current news regarding the defacing and stealing of metal from memorials and the furore regarding Rules versus Guidelines. I personally like war memorials, and have visited lots - finding the names of relatives from the Great War in my ancestor research, and even just just quietly paying respects. The placing of caches within the vicinity often encourages people to look and remember - but again, with the current news, no doubt someone will call the Police, reporting an innocent cacher rooting around a memorial,and Geocaching will get more bad publicity. I don't intend to get arrested whilst searching for a cache, so will not be looking for any round memorials for a while.

Again, this is my personal opinion, and not in any way associated with GAGB

I have the same view as DrDick&Vick, if you want to bring people to a memorial do it as part of a multi. Look at the memorial, get some data and then put the cache a good distance away. In this case the puzzle has nothing to do with the location and I can't see why the final container couldn't be put somewhere else with a little twaeking of the puzzle.

[team tisri]

This could easily turn into another hot potato ! With the current news regarding the defacing and stealing of metal from memorials and the furore regarding Rules versus Guidelines. I personally like war memorials, and have visited lots - finding the names of relatives from the Great War in my ancestor research, and even just just quietly paying respects. The placing of caches within the vicinity often encourages people to look and remember - but again, with the current news, no doubt someone will call the Police, reporting an innocent cacher rooting around a memorial,and Geocaching will get more bad publicity. I don't intend to get arrested whilst searching for a cache, so will not be looking for any round memorials for a while.

Again, this is my personal opinion, and not in any way associated with GAGB

 

To me this is just another reason to bring back old-fashioned virtuals. I just spent a weekend in Washington DC and found something like 19 caches of which all but one were virtuals (the one physical cache was well away from the more sensitive areas).

 

In a busy area someone reading the inscriptions on a memorial draws no undue attention at all, someone rooting around in the bushes for something, or someone seen leaving a container concealed near a busy monument in a sensitive area is almost certainly going to draw unwanted attention.

 

It's a shame we can't have more physical caches in these areas but that's the world we live in.

 

On the subject of rules and guidelines it makes a lot of sense to give local reviewers a degree of freedom to set rules that are relevant to their area. I believe in the US the railway company owns the tracks and everything within about 100 feet either side, so something like our Sidetracked series wouldn't fly over there. In the UK there's no obvious reason why a micro near the bridge over the railway line shouldn't be placed so it works for us. Likewise we have our own arrangements with groups like the Metropolitan Police which are probably of little to no interest to anyone associated with geocaching outside the UK.

 

Ultimately whatever the rules or guidelines are it's up to us whether to look for a cache, and I'm sure several of us have gotten near to GZ and declined to search any further for whatever reason.

[patdhill]

My quandary has resolved the cache has been disabled, many thanks for everyone's comments.

[+Cup.]

Because guidleines are just that not rules

 

But you know that's not true!

[+Happy Humphrey]

If anyone has qualms about searching for a cache at a war memorial (in view of the current worries with plaques being stolen for their metal content), I suggest simply logging the waymark instead. That way you only need to get a couple of photos and you're away before any busybody reports you for taking photos of public places or otherwise acting suspiciously. Every war memorial has a waymark, and as Team Tisri said it's a good place for a virtual/waymark.

 

I must say I haven't spotted the rule that a war memorial cache needs to have specified permission. I used to know all the guidelines and local rules but it's got out of hand recently. Where is the Geocaching.com page that details all the UK rules? A cacher needs to have these right up front so he/she doesn't waste time placing caches that are never going to be approved, or which require details to be submitted which might not be available. For instance, you might place the cache after personally consulting with the person maintaining the monument and then later find that you need their name and contact details. And then you might find that the listing is denied anyway because the site is overlooked by offices, which I believe is also a local rule.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[Deceangi]

If anyone has qualms about searching for a cache at a war memorial (in view of the current worries with plaques being stolen for their metal content), I suggest simply logging the waymark instead. That way you only need to get a couple of photos and you're away before any busybody reports you for taking photos of public places or otherwise acting suspiciously. Every war memorial has a waymark, and as Team Tisri said it's a good place for a virtual/waymark.

 

I must say I haven't spotted the rule that a war memorial cache needs to have specified permission. I used to know all the guidelines and local rules but it's got out of hand recently.

 

Ermm you made this post just under 12 months ago in the topic which announced this.

 

Deci

[+Happy Humphrey]

If anyone has qualms about searching for a cache at a war memorial (in view of the current worries with plaques being stolen for their metal content), I suggest simply logging the waymark instead. That way you only need to get a couple of photos and you're away before any busybody reports you for taking photos of public places or otherwise acting suspiciously. Every war memorial has a waymark, and as Team Tisri said it's a good place for a virtual/waymark.

 

I must say I haven't spotted the rule that a war memorial cache needs to have specified permission. I used to know all the guidelines and local rules but it's got out of hand recently.

 

Ermm you made this post just under 12 months ago in the topic which announced this.

 

Deci

That was about Memorial Gardens, which is a different rule from the new War Memorials one. Isn't it? Memorial Gardens often have nothing to do with War Memorials.

(Edit) Oh - reading the thread again, it does also mention War Memorials.

This just illustrates how complicated the rules are getting, when you forget about one that was brought in only a year ago. It's no good just pointing out an obscure thread; we need to see the full list as part of the geocaching.com website, or else how is a cache hider to be aware in advance of all these special rules?

Edited November 5, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+Graculus]

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom

 

To be fair this hasn't been publicised much yet but we have mentioned it in the forums. My resource site (which is linked to on reviewers signature lines in forum posts, emails and logs we write on caches) has been running for nearly 3 years and also has all this information on it.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+eusty]

Handy link thanks Chris...now bookmarked

[patdhill]

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom

 

To be fair this hasn't been publicised much yet but we have mentioned it in the forums. My resource site (which is linked to on reviewers signature lines in forum posts, emails and logs we write on caches) has been running for nearly 3 years and also has all this information on it.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

A nice clear document many thanks for adding the link. One question from a recent thread on the forum about glass containers, I've seen various old posts on forums about them not being allowed in the UK. Could a reviewer give us the official policy on them and if they are not allowed add it to the new wiki so it's easy for people to find an official statement.

[+Graculus]

We do appear to be going off topic here but to answer the question about containers. The "]Knowledge Books article explains containers and offers suggestions. I'll query a 'take away' container or 'ice cream' container simply because many that you buy really are not suitable, they are made of very flimsy plastic and they do get damaged easily. As for glass containers, there is nothing in the Knowledge Books to say they are not suitable nor have we been given any specific guidance on their suitability or not. Glass jars can be pretty solid and waterproof. I'll publish a cache in a jar. Saying this, if the container is described to me and I think it isn't suitable I'll query it. I've had caches submitted in test tubes and those I would say are pretty fragile things and not at all suitable. Of course you just have to hope people placing caches use common sense in what does or doesn't make a good container

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Happy Humphrey]

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom

 

To be fair this hasn't been publicised much yet but we have mentioned it in the forums. My resource site (which is linked to on reviewers signature lines in forum posts, emails and logs we write on caches) has been running for nearly 3 years and also has all this information on it.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Thanks for the link; that's a great summary and one that any cache hider should be aware of.

[+thekennelat79]

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom

 

To be fair this hasn't been publicised much yet but we have mentioned it in the forums. My resource site (which is linked to on reviewers signature lines in forum posts, emails and logs we write on caches) has been running for nearly 3 years and also has all this information on it.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

 

 

Your name doesn't appear to be there, Chris

 

Current Reviewers for the United Kingdom

Alba15 (Scotland), Andalusite (South Wales), Antheia (Channel Islands and East Midlands), dalesmanX (Yorkshire and North East England), Deceangi (North Wales and North West England), La Lunatica (Southern England), Lindinis (South West England), The Bee Keeper (London), The Long Man (South East England), Geohatter (West Midlands) and Red Duster (Eastern England)

Edited November 5, 2011 by thekennelat79

[+Graculus]

It does now!! I guess as I wrote the page I just forgot to add myself.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+thekennelat79]

It does now!! I guess as I wrote the page I just forgot to add myself.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

I always knew that you were one of those shy and reclusive types!

[+Happy Humphrey]

It does now!! I guess as I wrote the page I just forgot to add myself.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Reading the page more carefully it does seem to have one important rule missing; the one where "a cache is placed in an overlooked location". In this case the reviewer will have checked on Google Satellite view and noticed that there are buildings nearby. The listing will be denied unless you confirm that you've added a "clear and unambiguous hint on how to retrieve the cache quickly" and that it's "clearly labelled as a geocache with the cache GC number if it is large enough for this to be written externally". In practice this rule is applied even if the cache has been placed in the countryside with the landowner's knowledge but the location is overlooked by a building. I notice that this is in the GAGB Guidelines and is being enforced by Groundspeak reviewers so it should clearly be in the Wiki.

 

Again demonstrating how complicated it's now getting!

[+Graculus]

When I started reviewing in July 2008 we had the GC guidelines and the GAGB guidelines. One of the outgoing reviewers had a resource site which had additional useful information but that was later removed. So I felt we needed something to replace both that and try and collate all the other information together. At that time the GAGB website was somewhat out of date so I put together my resource site with as much information as I could.

 

This has expanded quite a bit. I've created map overlays for Google maps for the landowner entries in the GAGB as well as several interactive application forms to apply for permission which again are linked to via the GAGB landowner database. I've added as much information trying to explain the guidelines we have such as the war memorial one so people understand that these guidelines are there and why they came about.

 

Then Groundspeak started the project to get country specific wiki's together for people to use. Problem for me is that the UK Wiki (which I linked to earlier) is a duplication of my resource site. So all I've done is pretty much copy what I'd already done to the new site. Now of course we have two locations! My resource site is updated regularly (I'm currently making some major changes) and I try to remember to update the wiki too but it is probably missing some stuff. I'll try and rectify that.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Blue Square Thing]

I just want to say thanks for doing a brilliant job with getting this information out there actually... :-)