Jump to content

Resignation as a Volunteer


Followers 22

Recommended Posts

I'm really sorry to read this Dave. I'd like to say a massive thank you to you for all that you have done for the Geocaching community over the years. Some people just aren't appreciated, especially in particular with you is your knowledge of such access matters. Groundspeak are fools for not listening to you.

 

Ditto the above.

Link to comment

I'm just catching up with this news. All the best for the future to you and your family Dave. I know we've not always seen eye-to-eye but I always appreciated your efforts for the UK caching community and respected the time and effort you put into reviewing. That the Frog pushed things too far doesn't come as a complete shock, I'm sorry to say. I won't list the weird decisions here, but ejecting a Reviewer - who'd given years of (free) service - fits a certain pattern. I hope you'll continue caching as a 'civilian' and enjoy your (enforced) retirement. A cache event to mark your service would be appropriate and I hope if one's published, a link to it will be posted here.

Link to comment

Amazing! After some years of not bothering with caching I decided to have a quick look to see how things were going, only to find Dave's post about being forced out. "Old Timers" will know our joint history and I was immensely saddened, Dave, to see how you have been treated after many years unpaid service to the hobby.

 

What you describe matches my own thoughts and fears of how Groundspeak had been developing and absolutely confirms how I had come to feel about what used to be a fantastic hobby. At one time it was a niche pastime created by enthusiasts, run by enthusiasts for the benefit of enthusiasts. Now it is very different and for me at least it has lost its attraction. I still have little enthusiasm for taking up the hobby again. That being said many people still get a lot of enjoyment out of it so good for them, I hope they can enjoy it as much as I once did.

 

At the time I resigned (in not too dissimilar circumstances to you) I expressed the thought that maybe the time had come for the business model to change from one supported by enthusiastic volunteers to one more reliant on paid staff who would be better placed to adhere to corporate diktatspolicies. From what I can see now that is even more my feeling.

 

So Dave, sorry to see how you have been treated. You have my admiration for sticking with it for so long. It's an unfortunate coincidence that I should happen to log on for the first time in nearly 3 years only to find out what has just happened.

 

Peter

Link to comment

So what has to happen for people to start going elsewhere. The only option appears to be Garmin's OpenCaching but that looks like some of the GC caches listed on both sites, and without all the 'desirable' functions that GC has developed over the years. So I suspect people are going to find it difficult to make that sort of move.

Link to comment

So what has to happen for people to start going elsewhere. The only option appears to be Garmin's OpenCaching but that looks like some of the GC caches listed on both sites, and without all the 'desirable' functions that GC has developed over the years. So I suspect people are going to find it difficult to make that sort of move.

 

I think what has to happen is for there to be an alternative with anywhere near as many geocaches. I looked into alternatives in the UK a few months back and concluded that there are some of them out there but none have anything like the same reach that Groundspeak has. Even though my thinking is that I'd rather have one enjoyable walk to find one box at a breathtaking vista than a long trudge finding 100 film pots behind signs (if the walk was good I'd enjoy the walk, but could do the walk without bothering with the endless film pots).

 

ETA: if we could be reasonably sure that any given cache would be a fun experience it would be less of an issue to travel to find a single cache. On a route taking in many caches the chances are some will be fun and some will be dull but to travel any distance for one cache only to find it was a soggy film pot behind a sign with a full log would be frustrating, to say the least.

 

I wonder how much the degradation of what's in the (increasingly few) caches big enough to hold trade items has to do with the game becoming more mainstream. I can't help thinking that the sort of person who plans an outing, loads coordinates into the GPS and sets off on a trip is more likely to be prepared for caching than the person who looks at their smartphone and asks "is there anything near here?". Even when caches are hidden in places like beautiful vistas, if there's cellphone coverage the smartphone cacher could still just wonder "maybe there's a cache up here" and find it. And if they haven't planned on caching they won't have their own trade items but may still take that cool doodad because, well, it's kinda cool.

 

In some ways the endless proliferation of film pots and keysafes is arguably necessary to keep the game alive - if all that's in your home area is half a dozen caches then however good they are it won't take very long to find them. Having a regular cycle of new caches means people have a stream of things to go and find, but at the same time makes it less interesting to actually go and find them. So for the people who seek numbers above all else it's great, and the people who seek quality above all else the most likely outcome is that they'll find everything within a sensible travelling distance and then have no reason to continue to pay a premium membership fee. To be perfectly honest I'm surprised geocaching as it stands still survives as a game at all.

 

Given how utterly disinterested Groundspeak seem to be in their own "suggestions" forum I have to wonder whether a potential competitor could just read through the list of ideas we as a community have presented, see what Groundspeak is doing wrong, and then do it right.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

That request by the landowner (that people should not use a public right of way) was *not* a reasonable request, and so you were right not to allow it.

 

I'm sad that you're no longer a reviewer; you performed a valuable role that I certainly wouldn't be able to do, but I hope that you can continue to enjoy the game of geocaching.

Link to comment

In many ways OpenCaching probably suits my style of caching, and in my area they all seem to be bigger than the palm of your hand so non of those Nano things I dislike ;) So I'm with you on the walk before the cache although there are some series on GC where I can combine an excuse for a walk with finding a few caches along the way so its that element that keeps me here. BUT, I now have two big gripes - The UK membership fee 'scandal' and now the experience of a seasoned and long standing reviewer. Will a third issue be enough for me to remove all my caches from GC and transfer them to OC? Only time will tell I guess.

Edited by Mallah
Link to comment

Having been a pm for 9 years I also have concluded that it's time to lapse. Groundspeak lost the plot so long ago it's now far away over the horizon. Might also test the archive button a few times to see how well it works

 

Edited for spelling

 

Groundspeak's business model requires volunteers to both hide caches and act as reveiwers and yet they treat both communities with contempt. I can report that the archive button is reliable and worked every time.

Only a few more to go.

Edited by Kryten
Link to comment

Having been a pm for 9 years I also have concluded that it's time to lapse. Groundspeak lost the plot so long ago it's now far away over the horizon. Might also test the archive button a few times to see how well it works

 

Edited for spelling

 

Groundspeak's business model requires volunteers to both hide caches and act as reveiwers and yet they treat both communities with contempt. I can report that the archive button is reliable and worked every time.

Only a few more to go.

 

You're right, that does seem very peculiar. But I guess as long as they've got people willing to hide caches for free (even if "caches" means soggy film pots behind signs that will have vanished in a few weeks), and people willing to review and publish the caches for free, why would Groundspeak complain at having a for-profit business largely run by volunteers?

Link to comment

In many ways OpenCaching probably suits my style of caching, and in my area they all seem to be bigger than the palm of your hand so non of those Nano things I dislike ;)

There's a huge fallacy in this argument. All the types of caches that you enjoy are there on geocaching.com. That there are many others which you deem unworthy is due to the popularity of gc.com. It's hard to explain, so perhaps the best way is through an illustration. If my town has three caches on Opencaching.com and they all happen to be just the sort that I like, versus three hundred on geocaching.com with two hundred of them being (in my opinion) rubbish, then there are 97 more caches of what I deem "quality" on geocaching.com. Rather better than the three!

 

There are loads of lovely countryside caches around in great spots with (if this floats your boat) fairly sizeable containers. I've found quite a few recently, all over the country. You don't need to trawl alternative listing sites to find them

 

What I'm saying is that the "gc.com has poor caches so Deceangi should have been kept on" argument is that it's inaccurate and irrelevant and a red herring. That gc.com want to insist on reviewers toeing the party line even when it's inadvisable or illegal is actually the relevant point, and it's nothing to do with whether you like your log book to have space around it or whether you don't mind.

Link to comment

In many ways OpenCaching probably suits my style of caching, and in my area they all seem to be bigger than the palm of your hand so non of those Nano things I dislike ;)

There's a huge fallacy in this argument. All the types of caches that you enjoy are there on geocaching.com. That there are many others which you deem unworthy is due to the popularity of gc.com. It's hard to explain, so perhaps the best way is through an illustration. If my town has three caches on Opencaching.com and they all happen to be just the sort that I like, versus three hundred on geocaching.com with two hundred of them being (in my opinion) rubbish, then there are 97 more caches of what I deem "quality" on geocaching.com. Rather better than the three!

 

There are loads of lovely countryside caches around in great spots with (if this floats your boat) fairly sizeable containers. I've found quite a few recently, all over the country. You don't need to trawl alternative listing sites to find them

 

What I'm saying is that the "gc.com has poor caches so Deceangi should have been kept on" argument is that it's inaccurate and irrelevant and a red herring. That gc.com want to insist on reviewers toeing the party line even when it's inadvisable or illegal is actually the relevant point, and it's nothing to do with whether you like your log book to have space around it or whether you don't mind.

 

It's true to say that "there is a lot of dross on gc.com" and "Deceangi shouldn't have been pushed" are two different statements, but the underlying factor is a perception that Groundspeak has lost the plot.

 

Your point about the 97 extra quality caches is fair, up to a point. The issue arises when it becomes difficult to determine what's going to be fun from what's going to be dull - in the past I've sometimes enjoyed a hide that was a film pot, and on one occasion I cycled a 20-mile round trip to find a single nano, knowing it was a nano before I set off. So it's not even as simple as excluding micros from a pocket query, it's just about how much trash people are willing to filter looking for the treasure. And that's not something that has a simple "right" or "wrong" answer, which presumably is why some people are here expressing ongoing irritation and an intention to let their premium membership lapse while others are saying how it still represents fantastic value.

 

I've had my $30 worth of value from my last premium membership but have found that in my area so many geocaches are micros with a fairly short lifespan I don't suppose for a minute that I'll get $30 worth if I renew it. So for me it's counting down the last few days before it lapses. If I miss it I can always buy another one, but since I've found three caches in six months this year that seems unlikely.

Link to comment

Unfortunately I think that what this thread (and some others on FB groups) actually means is that about 100 UK cachers feel very strongly about the circumstances (some enough to cancel premium membership or stop caching all together) and feel like challenging Grounspeaks position. Probably about 500 are aware of what has happened, probably agree that it doesn't seem very nice but don't consider it affects them a great deal so just carry on regardless. ..and hundreds of thousands don't know about it and wouldn't care even if they did.

Link to comment

I haven't been on this site for many a month, only being directed over here again because of another epic fail on Groundspeaks part. I have made my feeling clear elsewhere on the despicable treatment of Dave, and yes, I will be another one who won't be renewing my membership when the time comes.

 

The treatment of Deci is one, the fact that Groundspeak haven't acknowledged all the good work that he has done for them and the community over the last 8 years is another, and their continued changing of rules without consulting us, who play the game, is the final reason.

 

Good on you Dave for your stance, I am sorry that it came to it as you were the voice of reason in the UK caching community.

Link to comment

I haven't been on this site for many a month, only being directed over here again because of another epic fail on Groundspeaks part. I have made my feeling clear elsewhere on the despicable treatment of Dave, and yes, I will be another one who won't be renewing my membership when the time comes.

I know that you're a lynchpin of caching in this part of the world, and it's a shame if you really decide to leave caching (or at least, take a back seat). As we know, Groundspeak will not be affected, nor care, in the slightest about it. Even if all of us that have heard about this issue decide not to renew it will matter to them not one jot.

 

It's an ironic situation that people criticise them for not caring, and then somehow expect them to care when you leave! If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but the people affected will be those who have enjoyed your event organising efforts and cache placements. "TPTB" are unlikely to even hear about it, and if they do they won't be interested.

Link to comment

I haven't been on this site for many a month, only being directed over here again because of another epic fail on Groundspeaks part. I have made my feeling clear elsewhere on the despicable treatment of Dave, and yes, I will be another one who won't be renewing my membership when the time comes.

I know that you're a lynchpin of caching in this part of the world, and it's a shame if you really decide to leave caching (or at least, take a back seat). As we know, Groundspeak will not be affected, nor care, in the slightest about it. Even if all of us that have heard about this issue decide not to renew it will matter to them not one jot.

 

It's an ironic situation that people criticise them for not caring, and then somehow expect them to care when you leave! If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but the people affected will be those who have enjoyed your event organising efforts and cache placements. "TPTB" are unlikely to even hear about it, and if they do they won't be interested.

 

I have been watching from afar and my opinion this was a manufactured situation simply to settle a beef with a reviewer. We all know that Groundspeak's policy is to *always* side with the landowner regarding a cache. There is no discussion, just satisfy the landowner. So either the landowner is the one with a beef with the reviewer or is good friends with the one that does have a beef and the landowner raises the issue of using the RoW to access the cache. Of course he can't do that, but when it gets back to Groundspeak it does not matter, they will *always* do what the landowner asks, which is to restrict the use of the RoW. So I would not totally put the blame on Groundspeak, they are simply following a policy they have had in place for years. I would put a lot of the blame on the person using Groundspeak as a weapon against the reviewer. I find it interesting that the course to solve the problem was not archive the cache, but to restrict the use of the RoW, something the reviewer could not do in good faith but what Groundspeak sees as a way to resolve the landowner's complaint.

Link to comment

You are absolutely right regarding your statement that Groundspeak always take the side of the landowner but you are wrong when you assume there is some third party intent in this situation. You hit the nail on the head when you state that Groundspeak wish to deal with the situation by putting a restriction on the Right of Way and this is the crux of the problem. In the UK you can't just put a restriction on a Right of Way in that manner. The Reviewer pointed out that this was illegal but Groundspeak would not listen to well informed reason and experience.

Link to comment

I haven't been on this site for many a month, only being directed over here again because of another epic fail on Groundspeaks part. I have made my feeling clear elsewhere on the despicable treatment of Dave, and yes, I will be another one who won't be renewing my membership when the time comes.

I know that you're a lynchpin of caching in this part of the world, and it's a shame if you really decide to leave caching (or at least, take a back seat). As we know, Groundspeak will not be affected, nor care, in the slightest about it. Even if all of us that have heard about this issue decide not to renew it will matter to them not one jot.

 

It's an ironic situation that people criticise them for not caring, and then somehow expect them to care when you leave! If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but the people affected will be those who have enjoyed your event organising efforts and cache placements. "TPTB" are unlikely to even hear about it, and if they do they won't be interested.

 

Jacaru didn't say he would stop caching , but that he wouldn't renew his premium membership . It will therefore make them care a jot precisely equal to the cost ( plus VAT ... ) of a premium membership. A drop in the revenue ocean perhaps , but enough drops can become a flood .

 

Thinking that nothing will have an effect on Groundspeak , so why bother to even try , is a depressing counsel of helplessness to say the least . Letting ones premium membership lapse may be nothing other than a gesture , but at least it is an attempt to make a mark .

Edited by hal-an-tow
Link to comment

You are absolutely right regarding your statement that Groundspeak always take the side of the landowner but you are wrong when you assume there is some third party intent in this situation. You hit the nail on the head when you state that Groundspeak wish to deal with the situation by putting a restriction on the Right of Way and this is the crux of the problem. In the UK you can't just put a restriction on a Right of Way in that manner. The Reviewer pointed out that this was illegal but Groundspeak would not listen to well informed reason and experience.

 

The reviewer did say

This issue being deliberately escalated to cause as much trouble for me personally, by a individual I will not name.

 

As I said Groundspeak will always side with the landowner. Yes I know it is illegal for the landowner to put the restriction on the RoW, but is it illegal for Groundspeak? It is after all listed on Groundpeaks site and Groundspeak does get a say on what can/should be in the listings they host. In just about all cases the landowner issue is that the cache exits and the way to resolve the is issue is to archive the cache. The landowner certainly could have asked for the cache to be archived in this case to resolve the "issue" of folks using the RoW to access the cache. But they did not, but instead asked for the restriction on the RoW, which they knew was illegal and which they knew the reviewer would not do but probably were confident that Groundspeak would require the restriction. Now that the reviewer is gone I wonder if the cache is still there and did a lackey edit in the restriction or did the cache get archived?

 

As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner.

Link to comment

You are absolutely right regarding your statement that Groundspeak always take the side of the landowner but you are wrong when you assume there is some third party intent in this situation. You hit the nail on the head when you state that Groundspeak wish to deal with the situation by putting a restriction on the Right of Way and this is the crux of the problem. In the UK you can't just put a restriction on a Right of Way in that manner. The Reviewer pointed out that this was illegal but Groundspeak would not listen to well informed reason and experience.

 

The reviewer did say

This issue being deliberately escalated to cause as much trouble for me personally, by a individual I will not name.

 

As I said Groundspeak will always side with the landowner. Yes I know it is illegal for the landowner to put the restriction on the RoW, but is it illegal for Groundspeak? It is after all listed on Groundpeaks site and Groundspeak does get a say on what can/should be in the listings they host. In just about all cases the landowner issue is that the cache exits and the way to resolve the is issue is to archive the cache. The landowner certainly could have asked for the cache to be archived in this case to resolve the "issue" of folks using the RoW to access the cache. But they did not, but instead asked for the restriction on the RoW, which they knew was illegal and which they knew the reviewer would not do but probably were confident that Groundspeak would require the restriction. Now that the reviewer is gone I wonder if the cache is still there and did a lackey edit in the restriction or did the cache get archived?

 

As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner.

 

Your first answer regarding the issue being deliberately escalate refers to a completely separate incident and not the ROW issue.

Regarding your second response, you confirm that you understand that it is illegal for the landowner to put a restriction on a RoW so if Groundspeak insist on a listing on a public domain including a restriction on a RoW then this must be illegal as well. End of story!

Link to comment

You are absolutely right regarding your statement that Groundspeak always take the side of the landowner but you are wrong when you assume there is some third party intent in this situation. You hit the nail on the head when you state that Groundspeak wish to deal with the situation by putting a restriction on the Right of Way and this is the crux of the problem. In the UK you can't just put a restriction on a Right of Way in that manner. The Reviewer pointed out that this was illegal but Groundspeak would not listen to well informed reason and experience.

 

The reviewer did say

This issue being deliberately escalated to cause as much trouble for me personally, by a individual I will not name.

 

As I said Groundspeak will always side with the landowner. Yes I know it is illegal for the landowner to put the restriction on the RoW, but is it illegal for Groundspeak? It is after all listed on Groundpeaks site and Groundspeak does get a say on what can/should be in the listings they host. In just about all cases the landowner issue is that the cache exits and the way to resolve the is issue is to archive the cache. The landowner certainly could have asked for the cache to be archived in this case to resolve the "issue" of folks using the RoW to access the cache. But they did not, but instead asked for the restriction on the RoW, which they knew was illegal and which they knew the reviewer would not do but probably were confident that Groundspeak would require the restriction. Now that the reviewer is gone I wonder if the cache is still there and did a lackey edit in the restriction or did the cache get archived?

 

As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner.

 

Your first answer regarding the issue being deliberately escalate refers to a completely separate incident and not the ROW issue.

Regarding your second response, you confirm that you understand that it is illegal for the landowner to put a restriction on a RoW so if Groundspeak insist on a listing on a public domain including a restriction on a RoW then this must be illegal as well. End of story!

On small problem, www.geocaching.com is not a public domain, it is a private website owned by a private company. They have lots to say about what goes on their site.

Link to comment

You are absolutely right regarding your statement that Groundspeak always take the side of the landowner but you are wrong when you assume there is some third party intent in this situation. You hit the nail on the head when you state that Groundspeak wish to deal with the situation by putting a restriction on the Right of Way and this is the crux of the problem. In the UK you can't just put a restriction on a Right of Way in that manner. The Reviewer pointed out that this was illegal but Groundspeak would not listen to well informed reason and experience.

 

The reviewer did say

This issue being deliberately escalated to cause as much trouble for me personally, by a individual I will not name.

 

As I said Groundspeak will always side with the landowner. Yes I know it is illegal for the landowner to put the restriction on the RoW, but is it illegal for Groundspeak? It is after all listed on Groundpeaks site and Groundspeak does get a say on what can/should be in the listings they host. In just about all cases the landowner issue is that the cache exits and the way to resolve the is issue is to archive the cache. The landowner certainly could have asked for the cache to be archived in this case to resolve the "issue" of folks using the RoW to access the cache. But they did not, but instead asked for the restriction on the RoW, which they knew was illegal and which they knew the reviewer would not do but probably were confident that Groundspeak would require the restriction. Now that the reviewer is gone I wonder if the cache is still there and did a lackey edit in the restriction or did the cache get archived?

 

As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner.

 

Your first answer regarding the issue being deliberately escalate refers to a completely separate incident and not the ROW issue.

Regarding your second response, you confirm that you understand that it is illegal for the landowner to put a restriction on a RoW so if Groundspeak insist on a listing on a public domain including a restriction on a RoW then this must be illegal as well. End of story!

On small problem, www.geocaching.com is not a public domain, it is a private website owned by a private company. They have lots to say about what goes on their site.

Still illegal.

Link to comment

 

It's an ironic situation that people criticise them for not caring, and then somehow expect them to care when you leave! If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but the people affected will be those who have enjoyed your event organising efforts and cache placements. "TPTB" are unlikely to even hear about it, and if they do they won't be interested.

 

Thankyou Happy Humphrey, your comments are appreciated. I certainly wouldn't give up organising events as I get as much pleasure from doing that as I do caching.

Link to comment

I haven't been on this site for many a month, only being directed over here again because of another epic fail on Groundspeaks part. I have made my feeling clear elsewhere on the despicable treatment of Dave, and yes, I will be another one who won't be renewing my membership when the time comes.

I know that you're a lynchpin of caching in this part of the world, and it's a shame if you really decide to leave caching (or at least, take a back seat). As we know, Groundspeak will not be affected, nor care, in the slightest about it. Even if all of us that have heard about this issue decide not to renew it will matter to them not one jot.

 

It's an ironic situation that people criticise them for not caring, and then somehow expect them to care when you leave! If it makes you feel better then go ahead, but the people affected will be those who have enjoyed your event organising efforts and cache placements. "TPTB" are unlikely to even hear about it, and if they do they won't be interested.

 

I don't suppose Groundspeak will notice when my premium membership lapses. They must have enough people buying the app and paying their membership that a few won't matter. But when a company gets to a size it can afford to completely ignore its customers and not care when a number of them stop being customers, there's certainly no reason to continue to pay them unless you get specific value in return. And, to be honest, I no longer consider what I get to represent value for money.

 

Pocket queries are nice, but when I came to realise I'd taken all the caches off my GPS to keep the maps uncluttered for some other stuff, and six weeks later I hadn't downloaded a single PQ or put any caches back on my GPS (it's now nearly three months since I took the caches off), pocket queries don't hold the attraction they once did.

Link to comment

Don't forget though that the cache was not on land owned by the complainant.

 

Rather the complainant didn't like people using the public footpath which crossed his land to get to the cache.

 

Thus said landowner had no legal right of complaint.

 

I don't often agree with TM but in this case he's quite correct.

 

In my opinion the owner of the land crossed by the RoW didn't like it being there in the first place.

 

I would still like to know just where and what this cache is that has caused all this trouble.

 

Plus why do Americans think they can ride roughshod over English Laws to extent of ignoring them, they don't rule the world... yet!!!

Link to comment

Jacaru didn't say he would stop caching , but that he wouldn't renew his premium membership . It will therefore make them care a jot precisely equal to the cost ( plus VAT ... ) of a premium membership. A drop in the revenue ocean perhaps , but enough drops can become a flood .

 

Thinking that nothing will have an effect on Groundspeak , so why bother to even try , is a depressing counsel of helplessness to say the least . Letting ones premium membership lapse may be nothing other than a gesture , but at least it is an attempt to make a mark .

Even if 500 people fail to renew their premium memberships because of this, I doubt that GS will notice. Certainly if half a dozen drop out they'd have no idea that it's any type of protest. People lapse all the time. Even on this thread people have mentioned that they've fallen out of love with geocaching in general.

 

It's not depressing, it's just a fact of life that there's only one major geocaching website and it's overwhelmingly big compared to the minor ones. The fact that it has almost all of the best cache listings is enough to allow it to sail serenely through any small areas of choppy water that might be whipped up.

 

I'm glad that Jacaru will continue, although most people would find standard membership quite limiting, as downloading caches becomes tricky and many caches disappear altogether.

Link to comment

As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner.

I think that there are two points here.

1. Groundspeak was not siding with the landowner, but with someone else who doesn't want the RoW to be used (that he's the owner of the land the path crosses is irrelevant: to take notice of his instructions would be like taking notice of someone who doesn't like people driving down a public road past his house).

2. I thought that part of the purpose of having relatively local reviewers is that they'd be aware of local laws and customs and be able to implement gc.com policies in such a way as to sit comfortably with them. Obviously you could automate (or semi-automate) the review process, but it wouldn't take into account factors that only a resident of the country would know; so there could quickly be a lot of caches approved which later turn out to cause problems on quite a large scale. Either that or you would find that your perfectly reasonable hide gets refused, based on faulty information.

But if Groundspeak are going to overrule the local reviewer on important points of local law then they may as well do away with local reviewers altogether, and just have a team that investigates anything flagged up by the automated system.

Link to comment

2. I thought that part of the purpose of having relatively local reviewers is that they'd be aware of local laws and customs and be able to implement gc.com policies in such a way as to sit comfortably with them.

 

You would have thought so, but it is my belief (or misunderstanding) that since gc.com was first active in UK there have been several reviewers who have felt it necessary to resign as the result of conflict between their interpretation of UK laws/customs and Gc.com's.

Tim & June, Richard & Beth, MossTrooper, Eckington, Lactodorum and now Deceangi. It strongly suggests that gc.com do not give a fig for local reviewers or local laws/customs, unless they mirror their own.

Link to comment

Well, I don't think I've ever been on the forums but I had to see what Deceangi had to say...

Meanwhile I wonder what would happen if 500 people wrote to Groundspeak claiming to be landowners and asking for random notices to be put on caches. This thread makes it obvious that you just have to own some land, it doesn't matter if it's the land where the cache is or some other land.

(Note that these people wouldn't have to write anything against the law: they could be worried by all these cachers going past their house and ask whether there could be an alternative, or whatever: the law doesn't say you have to like a RoW, just that you cannot block it).

Do they have enough lackeys to even read the resulting correspondence?

 

Edited to clarify.

Edited by Uilebheist
Link to comment

I wonder if the landowner discovered that the only people using the footpath were geocachers. It is possible they planned on getting the footpath removed from the definitive map due to lack of use, and the geocache upset their plans.

 

It might be worth reporting the path to the local Rambler Association footpath officer so they can keep an eye on the situation, and keep it in use.

Link to comment

 

It might be worth reporting the path to the local Rambler Association footpath officer so they can keep an eye on the situation, and keep it in use.

 

or organise an annual flash mob event at one end of the footpath :o:ph34r:

 

If the Right of Way allows people to "pass and repass" then a flash mob that saw a large group of people walking back and forth along the path would be better. Perhaps the group could gather at one end, then split in two and half the people cross to the other end, then swap places one or two people at a time.

Link to comment

It would be interesting to see if two events would count as being sufficiently far apart given the existence of the ROW between them and the dispute over whether it's acceptable to use a legally enforcable right of way to get to (and presumably from) a cache.

 

If anybody wants some unactivated TBs I've got a few I'm willing to let go of. It's no secret that I'm not caching a whole lot any more so a few bug races I had planned aren't likely to happen.

Link to comment

I'm glad that Jacaru will continue, although most people would find standard membership quite limiting, as downloading caches becomes tricky and many caches disappear altogether.

 

It depends on your style of caching. I do not consider the downloading part to be tricky or tiresome given my style of geocaching. As the high number of PM-only caches in some areas are regarded, this might be something to reconsider for the hiders in particular if the caches are not caches that will be typically be the targets of inexperienced beginners.

There are quite a number of reasons for not being a PM and one of them is indeed being against the way Groundspeak is handling certain matters. I realized very early on that for Groundspeak never the community has been in the centre of their interest and the greater the differences to the US are, the more this becomes evident. Forf me it for me has about the money when I made the decision not to become a PM (not even the free test membership). I would not have an issue to pay twice as much per year as the current PM-fee if Groundspeak gave me the feeling that their top priority interest were the caching community and not their own company.

 

For cachers who really need the PM features, it is certainly more difficult than for those who would become PM mainly to sympathize with Groundspeak.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Sorry to hear the news Deci - you have served the UK community selflessly over the years - what a crap way to be treated.

 

I too feel that gc.com is loosing its way - it seems harder and harder to get caches published these days with so many rules guidlines.

 

Best of luck for the future.

Link to comment

I've worked my way through this post. I've wished Dave all the best elsewhere. What has got me thinking though , unless I've missed it, where are Groundspeak in this? It would be nice to hear their voice. The one we pay for. What do they think? Can they hear us? Is the tower so tall now that we are ants?

Link to comment

A lot of the local Facebook geocaching group members put Deci's name forward for Geocacher of the Month after his resignation and the way he had been treated. There must have been a couple of hundred people who nominated him, if not more. So, what a surprise then that it has been ignored completely when this months cacher of the month was announced. Yet again, Groundspeak have chosen to overlook the wishes of a group of UK cachers.

Link to comment

A lot of the local Facebook geocaching group members put Deci's name forward for Geocacher of the Month after his resignation and the way he had been treated. There must have been a couple of hundred people who nominated him, if not more. So, what a surprise then that it has been ignored completely when this months cacher of the month was announced. Yet again, Groundspeak have chosen to overlook the wishes of a group of UK cachers.

 

Good to know they care so much about their paying customers.

Link to comment

I believe Groundspeak has enough experience to know that you cannot force a nearby landowner to legally accept a geocache. Just because the geocache has a legal right to be there, and everyone has a legal right to access it, if the traffic is annoying the neighbor enough, then it should not be there. This is called common courtesy and respect. All that the landowner did was make a request, and Groundspeak wanted that same request passed on, and its not like everyone reads the cache page either. Ignoring the guy and throwing English law in his face is what triggers people to steal, and they may not stop at one geocache either. Win one battle while losing a war, and why would anyone want to fight for this anyhow? Nobody is blocking the path, but only making a polite request. If you push the limits of any law too far, then new ones get created. I'm sure that when the ROW was created, they weren't envisioning people using it as part of a game, and if they get enough complaints they may be forced to redefine it's legal use.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 22
×
×
  • Create New...