the gagb

[+Happy Humphrey]

Can we all just calm down please?

I think it's only certain salty seadogs getting het up.

A land owner has banned geocaching on their land, not GAGB.

Under the circumstances it seems more accurate to say that a land owner has asked GAGB to facilitate a nationwide ban and they've agreed (even coming to their own decisions about the extent of the ban: presumably to save the MoD any work).

[+castagnari]

Under the circumstances it seems more accurate to say that a land owner has asked GAGB to facilitate a nationwide ban and they've agreed (even coming to their own decisions about the extent of the ban: presumably to save the MoD any work).

 

From another thread

 

We are only following the wishes of the MOD as expressed to the GAGB.

 

However - that issue has it's own thread

[+Seaglass Pirates]

But Seaglass Pirates, I don't see judgement being made by GAGB. GAGB are passing on the message and yes hold on to the information for ease of any geocacher to find. That is where my inflammatory remark of utter tosh came from; my remark was pointless and to me was just a phrase saying I disagree (you can tell I don’t get allowed out much). A land owner has banned geocaching on their land, not GAGB.

 

I assume the answer to your question is B. But that is only my perspective as outsider. But even if that is the case, does that mean that Groundspeak or any other geocaching hosting site should ignore messages that are passed through the GAGB?

 

Your comparison to BSAC is to me good regarding authority but as an ex-BSAC member, I paid for my membership to get legal cover/representation. A diver doesn't have to use BSAC and can pay other bodies to get that legal cover. People don't pay GAGB for legal cover and therefore I interpret that as not an authoritive body. As an ex-member to a BSAC club, BSAC had authority powers over clubs and members in order to fulfil

 

BSAC are also a respected knowledgeable body but that doesn't mean authortive when advising organisations such as the Army, unless of course an Army unit operates a BSAC club. The Army do utilise BSAC for social diving but still have their own qualification for a specific leader role that is advised by BSAC (and I assume naval diving and Army Lawyer).

 

Well number 1 - Humph - not getting het up. I had not found the way to use italics on this forum. Italics usually being used to emphasise a point on various forums. Now I have. Of course capitals means shouting so I get the point but you are mistaken.

 

Back to you Metal - You and a few others seem to have missed the point. Passing on info is totally fine. But that is not what the GAGB did. They have had negotiations with the MOD. Which is a massive departure from passing on a message. And they are also going to have further negotiations. But on who's authority is what I would like to know.

 

But they are negotiating for us, another organisation which has paid membership. Well should they stuff it up my ability to place a cache in a certain place will be removed. Not because Groundspeak failed to negotiate with the MOD. But because a club, who have nothing to do with me, involved themselves without being asked, by anyone. Apparently not even their own members who seem as surprised as we are if you read back through various threads regarding this.

 

To be a representative organisation with clout, they also have to be able to be held to account if it is required. And they can't - Not Authoritative and therefore can offer no indemnity - compensation if failing in their duties. They cant even be held to account by Groundspeak. So I ask again -

 

Can anyone at Groundspeak confirm that

 

A) The Geocaching Association of Great Britain (G.A.G.B.) is recognised by Groundspeak as Groundspeaks UK authority in the United Kingdom and represents Groundspeak and geocaching.com in all matters related to UK geocaching or

 

B ) Is the GAGB an entirely separate organisation with occasionally aligned interests but has no official authority to act on behalf of Groundspeak.

 

If its A then all is well and good. On we go and help the GAGB with the MOD. If Its B - well its obvious this is a crock. And no waffling can make it look good.

[+geohatter]

The answer to your question is B and no it's not a crock.

 

You're obviously misunderstanding the facts here. Just because the GAGB have negotiated land agreements does not mean that we take orders from them.

 

It is not part of Groundspeak's (or any other listing service) remit to negotiate land agreements. That is up to the community. You are taking exception to an organisation that has done that on our behalf without being asked to do so.

 

I'm not saying this means you should support them or agree with anything else they may do. But just think how many of those agreements would not have existed without them because the vast majority of the community expects someone else to do it. Yes, they've made mistakes but so does any such body.

 

So in conclusion. The GAGB have no power over any listing service. If you don't agree with them negotiating land agreements, please feel free to do it yourself as others have done. There's nothing to stop you doing it and I bet the GAGB would be grateful for someone else taking on some of the work.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer - geocaching.com

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

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

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

Geocaching.com Wiki https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/MAGIC+Map

[+The Growler]

Am I missing something here? I have no idea what this organisation is or does and how it affects me. I publish caches and get a yay or nay from the local reviewer, end of. Can someone tell me why I should be bothered about them? I am not being provocative here, just confused as to what this organisation does that affects me.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

I am a little confused.

You will of course put my mind at ease.

 

The scenario is that an unhappy person from the MOD decides to take action against geocaching on the land he/she holds dear to his/her heart.

So. Does he/she contact the GAGB who have NO authority to act on behalf of Groundspeak. Or does he/she contact Groundspeak via the GC.com website?

I think the latter is the obvious answer.

So my confusion is simple. How then does the GAGB become involved?

As GeoHatter has confirmed above. Groundspeak would never have the GAGB act on their behalf. Unless asked to do so.

[+Bobo Frett]

The GAGB is there if you want to tap into it. It's a resource site mainly and a good focal point for those who don't cache and have queries or for those new to caching. It holds a landowner database and contact details for many of them too.

 

A cacher who had been refused permission by the MOD contacted the GAGB and asked for advice as many do. Many do not. They did not go to Gspeak nor did Gspeak come to the GAGB.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

The GAGB is there if you want to tap into it. It's a resource site mainly and a good focal point for those who don't cache and have queries or for those new to caching. It holds a landowner database and contact details for many of them too.

 

A cacher who had been refused permission by the MOD contacted the GAGB and asked for advice as many do. Many do not. They did not go to Gspeak nor did Gspeak come to the GAGB.

 

Thanks for the reply Bobo.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

The GAGB is there if you want to tap into it. It's a resource site mainly and a good focal point for those who don't cache and have queries or for those new to caching. It holds a landowner database and contact details for many of them too.

 

A cacher who had been refused permission by the MOD contacted the GAGB and asked for advice as many do. Many do not. They did not go to Gspeak nor did Gspeak come to the GAGB.

 

The reason the GAGB were contacted is understandable as the implication on the GAGB website is clear. They are the Geocaching Association of Great Brittain. It could confuse those seeking a contact to geocaching, who actually owns geocaching. But that wasnt the whole story - the whole story was that - following the (lets say) event, the GAGB then approached, unbidden - the MOD to negotiate ... it did not work, the results of which effect all cachers not just the members of the GAGB. And not just the area of land concerned but ALL estates UK Wide, that are owned by the same landowner. A details account can be found here of the timeline of events on a different thread here:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=312162&st=0

 

Cross threading perhaps but the question has been asked here, and to answer in context you need to refer to specifics as detailed by one of the GAGB's committe members -

 

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:44 PM

GAGB approached MoD after we were advised by a cacher that some caches had been refused permission by a local MoD organisation, after it had consulted the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO). We received a copy of this mail stating that MoD were considering their policy towards geocaching but this first mail also stated that:

“Unfortunately we cannot, at present, give permission for any physical geocache to be placed anywhere on our estate. Whilst the MOD does operate a presumption in favour of public access on its estate, when compatible with military operations and training, we do not consider physical geocaches acceptable for local and national reasons”

 

Following this, our negotiations have been with the Access and Recreation team in the DIO who will own this policy. We have requested maps of the land affected. Negotiations are ongoing and we are working to identify land which may be suitable for geocaching (virtual stages and possibly physical caches). I presume that once the policy has been finalised by DIO, that they will circulate it to their land managers.

 

In the case of the Royal Parks and BT phone boxes, we were contacted after they had already made their decisions. This didn’t stop us trying and we have had some success in turning round such situations, for example the Forestry Commission New Forest.

 

Dave - caching as The Wombles

[+Seaglass Pirates]

The answer to your question is B and no it's not a crock.

 

You're obviously misunderstanding the facts here. Just because the GAGB have negotiated land agreements does not mean that we take orders from them.

 

It is not part of Groundspeak's (or any other listing service) remit to negotiate land agreements. That is up to the community. You are taking exception to an organisation that has done that on our behalf without being asked to do so.

 

I'm not saying this means you should support them or agree with anything else they may do. But just think how many of those agreements would not have existed without them because the vast majority of the community expects someone else to do it. Yes, they've made mistakes but so does any such body.

 

So in conclusion. The GAGB have no power over any listing service. If you don't agree with them negotiating land agreements, please feel free to do it yourself as others have done. There's nothing to stop you doing it and I bet the GAGB would be grateful for someone else taking on some of the work.

 

Regards

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer - geocaching.com

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

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

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

Geocaching.com Wiki https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/MAGIC+Map

 

Cheers Paul concise and crystal clear with no ambiguity. Much Obliged.