The GAGB

[+Graculus]

Never got the GC number so I cannot therefore comment on the problem with the cache. Perhaps, like the references to the 'Sharpville' cache and the 'fake bolts' further up this thread it is a cache that also happened in 2008/9 and isn't a recent issue. So I guess we must be doing a good job if historic events need to be dragged up to show that we aren't

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Alan White]

Never got the GC number so I cannot therefore comment

Sorry, I thought you were joking, as you already have and you already have, only just over a week before my original comment. I mentioned it because Andalusite referred to a set of previously unknown to me rules which specifically say "caches will not be allowed within or near to playgrounds or play equipment". Yet I know many such caches including the example one. There's little point in having rules if they're ignored by those who made them.

[nobby.nobbs]

What I've posted on the GAGB forum regarding the guideline/rule issue.....

 

"The gagb list guidelines which are taken by Groundspeak reviewers to be rules. The end result Is that the gagb write the rules for Groundspeak. People who are not happy get told that there's nothing the reviewers can do, speak to gagb. Then the gagb say that they're just guidelines . Catch 22.

 

It is likely that non members will be unable to use the gagb forums soon. A move i think is sensible . This will generate more ill feeling because non members will be caught in a trap of the reviewers making.

 

A solution could be, take down the guidelines and write a best practice guide that specifically states it should not be used as a set of rules.

Then an open discussion can take place on the Groundspeak forum regarding what rules to use. This worked with the urban rule, which should've been handled by Groundspeak reviewers as I believe they received the request, or by a group with representatives from each listing site.

 

Otherwise the gagb will continue to be berated regarding the rules....regardless of how many times someone corrects them and says guidelines."

 

just thought people might be interested. It's the reason why I began a poll on the GAGB forum regarding whether the guidelines should be removed

[+Graculus]

Never got the GC number so I cannot therefore comment

Sorry, I thought you were joking, as you already have and you already have, only just over a week before my original comment. I mentioned it because Andalusite referred to a set of previously unknown to me rules which specifically say "caches will not be allowed within or near to playgrounds or play equipment". Yet I know many such caches including the example one. There's little point in having rules if they're ignored by those who made them.

 

My emphasis on your sentence in bold. Completely lost me now. Do you mean I already answered your query about a cache a week before you posted a comment about it? I still don't know which cache you refer to in your post #38 where you make it clear a reviewer has not responded to you reporting a cache. How do you expect me to reply sensibly to your comments if you only make vague statements?

 

The guideline you refer to about playgrounds has been there for a very long time on the Groundspeak website:

Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public.

My emphasis in bold.

 

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that putting a cache in a playground (or close to it) or near a school where there are young children isn't very sensible. What would parents with young children think when they see one or more adults hanging round a playground or searching the bushes nearby with what could be a camera in their hand? So we try to avoid that sort of situation by preventing it from happening.

 

I'm sure there are many caches in such locations that we don't know about. We use Google maps/Streetview to check locations and these are not always up to date so caches get published. If we get told about them we'll investigate and most likely ask the owner to move the cache.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+mollyjak]

I believe that Groundspeak and reviewers set the rules and the GAGB should give guidance, advice and call them guidelines or best practice.

 

I do not see how the GAGB can enforce any rules whereas the reviewers can. In my mind they are totally different.

 

Lilian

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that putting a cache in a playground (or close to it) or near a school where there are young children isn't very sensible. What would parents with young children think when they see one or more adults hanging round a playground or searching the bushes nearby with what could be a camera in their hand? So we try to avoid that sort of situation by preventing it from happening.

The Groundspeak advice, whilst sensible, is too vague. You and I might know immediately that placing a cache in bushes on the edge of a children's playground is asking for trouble. But remember that many cachers are just out of school, or are old enough to remember the days when people might stop at the side of a playground to be entertained by the charming sight of kids playing, without anything malicious crossing their mind and without any parent being alarmed in the slightest. They need guidance to be a bit more specific, also explaining the reasoning behind the advice rather than offering a bald list of banned hides.

 

My idea is to have a sort of cacher's code, short and snappy with the general principles of good practice summarised. This would be backed up by a more wordy guide to best practice, which details how to hide and find caches without causing unforeseen problems.

[+uktim]

 

The Groundspeak advice, whilst sensible, is too vague. You and I might know immediately that placing a cache in bushes on the edge of a children's playground is asking for trouble. But remember that many cachers are just out of school, or are old enough to remember the days when people might stop at the side of a playground to be entertained by the charming sight of kids playing, without anything malicious crossing their mind and without any parent being alarmed in the slightest.

 

The vast majority of people will still fall into one or other of these categories. Should the reviewers really be acting in such a hysterical manner? restricitng legitimate activities around schools and playgrounds will do nothing to alleviate the problems or peoples perceptions of it.

[Alan White]

I still don't know which cache you refer to in your post #38 where you make it clear a reviewer has not responded to you reporting a cache.

That is not what I said. I said "I found such a cache and reported it, without effect.". That is, the result of the report was no change. I found this surprising, especially as I now know about the absolute ban on such caches. As I say, I know of other similar caches and the proximity of the cache to the playground can be seen with GE and/or GSV.

 

I'd have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that putting a cache in a playground (or close to it) or near a school where there are young children isn't very sensible. What would parents with young children think when they see one or more adults hanging round a playground or searching the bushes nearby with what could be a camera in their hand? So we try to avoid that sort of situation by preventing it from happening.

I agree entirely.*

 

Not everyone agrees, though. See this thread.

 

* Just for clarification, whilst I agree that caches near playgrounds are a bad idea, I don't agree that UK reviewers should unilaterally make a rule banning them and, from the quoted thread, it seems that most others don't either. Like HH, I prefer the "cachers' code" concept on which some other sites base their guidelines (and which GAGB used to use) rather than the draconian rule-based method used here. For example, the equivalent guidance on another site is "Playgrounds and schools are best avoided.".