What is wanted of a national geocaching organisation

June 2, 2003

There is no doubt that a majority of cachers feel that there is a need for a national organisation to represent geocachers, in some form or another. For the moment, let's forget anything historical (eg GAGB).

The question is: what should the "terms of reference" for a national geocaching organisation be?

A few things to discuss maybe:

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc?

- how many people would be needed to run it?

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching?

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"?

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)?

- should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement?

- should it be involved with cache approval?

- what should it be called?

You must all have many other thoughts .....

I would like this thread to be a positive one: if you do NOT agree that we need a national association, then this is NOT the place to discuss that: please start a new thread.

Paul Blitz

<instructions: light blue touch paper, and retire to a safe distance>

June 2, 2003

A couple more, pertinent questions:

a) How do the officers, who "run" the organisation get elected?

What should be the qualities of an elected officer? (Time spent caching, number of caches found/hidden, technical expertise, [sense of humour - definitely!!], etc, etc)

June 2, 2003

Give it a rest. At least for a while Longer

3.8k · June 2, 2003

There are currently caches in 174 countries world wide. Ignoring the U.S. and us for the moment, does anyone know or even bothered to find out if geocachers in ANY of the other 172 countries have even considered a 'National Body' to represent them. My guess is 'no'. If it works OK for the rest of the world why does it have to be different for us?

I just know that someone will come out with a load of figures that will prove beyond doubt that such a body is needed. I'm yet to be convinced. I've always adopted the KISS principal and it's worked for me.

If it ain't broke... don't fix it.

John

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

June 2, 2003

I agree with The Spokes, this is 'so' not a good time to get into this discussion again.

Whatever anyone thinks about advertising, the NE & Cumbria Inside Out programme has just gone out tonight and it was really positive. I wouldn't want people to be put off and think that the level of argument seen previously is the norm.

June 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pharisee:
does anyone know or even bothered to find out if geocachers in ANY of the other 172 countries have even considered a 'National Body' to represent them. My guess is 'no'.

Your guess is wrong. New Zealand is a classic example. A small country, outside the US and the UK that has basically had an external body effectively 'force' their cachers to organise themselves into a body so that they had one point of contact with the NZ caching community.

Now, don't misread me here: I am not using NZ as an argument either for or against a UK organisation, I am using it to disprove John's guess that no other country outside the US and UK has gone down this path.

We certainly are not the only country outside the States to be facing this sort of situation, and maybe we can learn something from those other countries' processes.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
There is no doubt that a majority of cachers feel that there is a need for a national organisation to represent geocachers, in some form or another.

Given the recent poll I would suggest there is a some considerable doubt.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:

I would like this thread to be a positive one: if you do NOT agree that we need a national association, then this is NOT the place to discuss that: please start a new thread.

I agree, Paul: PLEASE could the naysayers take their comments to another thread...

In five years time, there will be a national geocaching club of some sort: It may be no more than the "social committee" of the caching community, or it may be acknowledged with full "sport governing body" status, or it may be somewhere in between: The fact is that humans being what we are, we tend to form groups at the drop of a hat (see Maslow, for the psychobabble boffins!).

Lost in Space said...

quote:
a) How do the officers, who "run" the organisation get elected?

Good question: Email voting by members? Do we trust each other enough not to register with multiple addresses, especially if membership is free?

quote:
What should be the qualities of an elected officer?

That they get elected: I'm involved in a number of voluntary bodies, and my experience suggests that the fewer rules on who can be elected, the better.

Cache on, cache on, with hope in your heart...

Paul

I came, I cached, I fell over in the mud

1.4k · June 3, 2003

Just a suggestion (whilst we are all tip toeing aroung, and before the board goes into melt down again.)

It seems fairly clear that the idea of an association has some support and some detractors. Fair enough. Nether side will convince each other on these forums (mainly due to the impoverished nature of the communications we are using) of their case.

GAGB seems to have quite a few supporters so it should go ahead and do stuff, elections constitution etc.

In order to improve acceptance it should talk about representing its members (not everyone) as this seems to be the biggest problem.

Creation of some forums to discuss this stuff on the GAGB site, by it's members, seems to be the way to go.

From experience it seems best if there is a seperation between forum moderators here and GAGB (or at least one mod available who will not be seen to be partisan).

To actually answer Pauls points:

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc?

Up to it's members really but the UK (inc Northern ireland ) seems good to me.

- how many people would be needed to run it?

Depends!

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching?

With landowners probebly yes - with Geomuggles I think it is not needed as things are growing anyway at the moment.

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"?

IMHO this would be a good thing.

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)?

I think that in the first instance this should be a representative of GC.com (moderator - or approver) who could pass enquiries over to GAGB as needed.

- should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement?

Nope - we have guidlines already any other amendments will surly be landowner specific.

- should it be involved with cache approval?

Nope - potential conflict of interest.

- what should it be called?

Perhaps it's members should decide that.

None of the above is a flame, or to be read as such. All text above is an attempt to make a positive contribution to the discussion and to find a way forward.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Paul G0TLG:
Do we trust each other enough not to register with multiple addresses, especially if membership is free?

'Fraid not.

What's your favourite thing?

June 3, 2003

I thought i would answer my own questions....

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc?

I believe it should be (albeit nominally) UK wide. I accept that certain regions may need "slightly different rules" due to regional differences i the laws.

- how many people would be needed to run it?

From experience, a committee of about 6 is a good size. I don't think, initially at least, there should be any "posts" as such... it should be up to the first committee to decide if formal posts are needed, and if so, what

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching?

Yes... see below

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"?

I think that THIS is actually, in the short to medium term, one of the most important tasks

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)?

I believe that this is another important task that needs to be done: it will make caching appear to be far more "organised" and thus more likely to be permmitted by landowners

- should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement?

We already have (informal) local "adjustments" to the US guidelines: these do need to be formalised, so that they can be presented to landowners

- should it be involved with cache approval?

I believe it MUST be... if it sets the guidelines, it must be involved in the "policing" (ie approval)

- what should it be called?

no reply to this one....

- How do the officers, who "run" the organisation get elected?

By a simple email vote, manually counted. I think there also needs to be a "validation" (eg an email back asking for confirmation of vote.

- What should be the qualities of an elected officer?

Anyone standing should post a "manifesto". I think is then up to the electorate to decide

Paul

1.4k · June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
- should it be involved with cache approval?

I believe it MUST be... if it sets the guidelines, it must be involved in the "policing" (ie approval)

Paul

This is an extremly contentious point and would lead to some conflicts of interest. What if I place a cache that meets all of Gc.coms guidelines but does not meet what GAGB see as the right way of doing things - it should still be approved.

In most systems of law making there is a seperation between those who make the rules and those who enforce them - for very good reasons!

The only way that could possibly be logical is for all UK GC.com members to be members of GAGB...and it dosn't look like that is going to happen.

All of the above to be read in a calm tone of voice. I have no anger over this issue.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
There is no doubt that a majority of cachers feel that there is a need for a national organisation to represent geocachers, in some form or another. For the moment, let's forget anything historical (eg GAGB).

WHAT??? Can you provide some proof of that statement please. The "majority" of cachers that I've spoken to recently don't want to be represented. They want to be left alone to get on with hiding and finding caches.

I thought there was an agreement to leave this contentious issue on the back burner for a while to let the dust settle. It's only been three weeks since all the muck was flying on the forums and I can't see that the strong opinions held by the opposing factions at that time will have changed. Why are you dragging it all up again now?

There may well be a "majority" of cachers in the Hampshire/Winchester area who are in favour of starting some kind of association and as that is the area where all the hard work has been done with the LOCAL council, why not start a LOCAL association and take things from there?

Starting up the for/against arguement for a national body again is going to achieve nothing but further disharmony. Give it a rest.

Alex.

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

[This message was edited by Slytherin on June 03, 2003 at 02:31 AM.]

June 3, 2003

Without starting a slagging match, I think that ALL caches should be shown, all the time, if they are approved, or not.... (*but see below)

If an organisation approves a cache site, then the cache description can have a 'Approved by GAGB' logo (or similar) , and maybe linked from GAGB, if it has that facility one day. A cache might be approved by many organisations, (if many exist)!

At the end of the day, it is the Landowner that decides if they want a cache on their property or not. Large 'County council' organisations may defer that responsibility to one (or more) organisations such as GAGB, and so might ask for all caches, that are left on their land, to be approved within 7 days by said organisations, or be removed from the database.

A cache owner might seek approval from an organisation anyhow, even if is not required by the landowner, to increase his rating within that organisation; Someone might reach 'GAGB Gold' status, if they have successfully placed a quantity of well documented and located caches according to the organisations guidelines. This may encourage other geocachers to travel further to find their caches, rather than someone with no rating.

(* There should be a minimum overall standard that a cache has to meet to be posted on GC.com, just for safety. We do not want any caches left on a railway line, or up a electricity pylon, for instance.)

June 3, 2003

I think the real question is where do we want geocaching to be in 5 years time? If an association starts negotiating new rules with large landowners, then there's a real possibility that, across the majority of the UK, people will only be able to place caches if they're a member of the association. I've yet to hear an explanation as to why this would be a Good Thing.

I would like cache approval to be based entirely on adherance to the rules (local or otherwise), not membership of any association.

Please may I add one more question to the list?...

- should it be allowed to negotiate exclusive arrangements with landowners?

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

June 3, 2003

To reply point-by-point, as requested...

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
The question is: what should the "terms of reference" for a national geocaching organisation be?

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc? Anywhere which either has similar land law to England, or has separate representation on the committee

- how many people would be needed to run it? half a dozen teams sounds about right - probably about 10 people

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching? IMHO yes, but others will certainly disagree

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"? Yes - so long as they succeed! We don't want to turn the landowners' blissful ignorance into a knee-jerk "no"! This role of an organisation is both the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger to UK geocaching. The New Zealanders gained much, but it seems they had less to lose!

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)? What's wrong with the GC.com UK admins?

should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement? What's wrong with the current set of UK rules? Sure, all these adhoc agreements the old moderators made with Grounded should have been written down somewhere (ideally GC.com!) but once that's been done, what's left to do?

- should it be involved with cache approval? Involved, yes. But I don't think it should control cache approvals, and I think there must be cache approvers who are independent of the association

- what should it be called? Unimportant. I can see arguments both for and against sticking with GAGB. There are more important concerns right now!

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:
If an association starts negotiating new rules with large landowners, then there's a real possibility that, across the majority of the UK, people will only be able to place caches if they're a member of the association.

I think it would be very bad, and restrictive of an association to enforce that only it's members can place caches that it would approve. Maybe part of the associations responsibility and mandate would be for it to consider for approval any cache it was asked to, by anyone, not just it's own members....

June 3, 2003

Hi Slytherin,Yes at long last. The formation of local associations should be the first step which will allow people to meet face to face.The problems that have come up on this thread could be discussed in alot better manner than over the fora.Then perhaps further steps if any could be taken.The reasons that have persuaded me that we need some form of organisation are many but two really worry me.The fact that we have no expertise to fall back on when it comes to rights of way and no good understanding of land use .Remember every piece of land in GB is owned by somebody.Irealise that not everybody likes the idea of an association but if we carry on as we are doing to be left alone to get on withhiding and finding caches what happens when there is a real problem such as the one we have at the moment with the forestry commision.Having found caches in areas that I am aware people have not sought permission is a source of worry to me and I wonder how widespread this is.As more start geocaching this problem will come to haunt us.We are going to be noticed whether we like it or not.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Weston Wanderers:
I think it would be very bad, and restrictive of an association to enforce that only it's members can place caches that it would approve.

The problem is what to do when, after months of negotiation, someone like the National Trust say "OK, we're happy for caches to be placed on our land, but only by your members, and only on the condition that your organisation takes responsibility for them". I know what I'd do if I were the negotiator!

But is this a landmark step forward for Geocaching, or has it just made it impossible to get a rule-abiding cache approved on GC.com? Depends if you're a member or not. For non-members, turning a landowner's blissful ignorance into a "yes, for your members", could be just as bad as turning it into a "no".

I hope I'm not coming across as being against an association, because I'm not. I agree with Paul that the terms of reference should be discussed up front. GAGB was originally created without prior public debate on why it was needed. The whole thing, especially the website, seemed rushed into place in a great hurry, yet no one could explain the urgency.

Let's discuss what we want for Geocaching, and then see what an organisation can do to help achieve these goals. Founding an organisation before deciding on a direction seems backwards!

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

June 3, 2003

Hi Teasel,yes please but perhaps not just over the fora but perhaps each area perhaps could organise a meeting face to face.There are problems but I am sure they can be sorted

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
GAGB seems to have quite a few supporters so it should go ahead and do stuff, elections constitution etc.

I notice they have changed their claim back to a single voice from the voice of it's members as it was the other day when I looked.

quote:
Creation of some forums to discuss this stuff on the GAGB site, by it's members, seems to be the way to go.

True, but Paul did say that the thread was to discuss what was wanted and wasn't about any particular association. That would make this the best place for a discussion on that.

quote:
From experience it seems best if there is a seperation between forum moderators here and GAGB (or at least one mod available who will not be seen to be partisan).

I can't agree more on this one. An association that controls the placement of caches, however well meaning, controls the game. That musn't be allowed to happen.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Icenians:
I notice they have changed their claim back to a single voice from the voice of it's members as it was the other day when I looked.

My apologies - thats an error on my part. I changed the page to take on board comments made in this forum but it looks like the old index page is still kicking around an linkable to, which makes it look like it has been changed back again.

I'll sort it out this evening. Glad to see you're actively looking at the pages

[Edited - no - thats not the problem after all. I'll look into it and still sort it out this evening]

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[This message was edited by el10t on June 03, 2003 at 05:20 AM.]

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by el10t:
My apologies - thats an error on my part. I changed the page to take on board comments made in this forum but it looks like the old index page is still kicking around an linkable to, which makes it look like it has been changed back again.

Easily done. It was nice to see that something came out of all the agro before. Thanks for explaining.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Icenians:
I can't agree more on this one. An association that controls the placement of caches, however well meaning, controls the game. That musn't be allowed to happen.

Too late.

An "association" already controls the placing of caches viz geocaching.com a US based semi-commercial operation. In order to play the game properly i.e. be able to log the caches on the web site, you have to be a member of geocaching.com. Before anybody says "Aha you could use navicache" or whatever, just check out the number of UK caches on Navicache - it's at least an order of magnitude smaller which with due respect to NC makes gc.com the only important geocaching web site.

There's no way that GAGB or any other association is going to be able to tell gc.com not to accept caches from non members of that organisation. The only way GAGB or other organisation is going to be able to influence cache approvals (in terms of guidelines) is if the approvers are sympathetic to the organisation and gc.com doesn't object.

All this means that a UK organisation is in no way going to be a threat to those people who do not want to get involved. They will still be able to cache as they always did. On the other hand, it will have the following positive benefits:

Be able to negotiate access rights with land owners so that individual don't have to bother with seeking permission or at least know where they stand
Promote geocaching (or at least represent it) in a positive light
Represent the UK cachers to gc.com such that the guidelines can be more UK culture friendly. If we're banded together in a group I think Jeremy would take us more seriously.

I can't see how any of the above is actually bad for UK geocachers and I personnally would not be associated with any organisation which makes it harder for non-members than it is now.

So those of you who do not want to be involved in GAGB or any other org, you've made your point so please keep quiet on this thread unless you have a positive contribution to make.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.gagb.org.uk

1k · June 3, 2003

In all I think a national body is a good idea dn needs to be set up for furture purposes....but it needs to be gone about in the right way.

Needs no LEADERS just needs to represent!

--------------------------------------------------------

I'm Bad, I'm Bad you know it you know!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
There is no doubt that a majority of cachers feel that there is a need for a national organisation to represent geocachers, in some form or another. You must all have many other thoughts .....

I dispute this premise (unless you have the data to prove otherwise). As others have suggested the previous discussion is still WAY to fresh in our minds. I suggest leaving it at least until the nettles have dies down before raising it again.

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:

I would like this thread to be a positive one: if you do NOT agree that we need a national association, then this is NOT the place to discuss that: please start a new thread.

So if we agree with you we can speak otherwise we should go elsewhere? OK. Bye.

June 3, 2003

Please give it a rest. What was a friendly group is beginning to tear itself to pieces.

How many more are going to leave before this thread dies?

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Icenians:
I can't agree more on this one. An association that controls the placement of caches, however well meaning, controls the game. That musn't be allowed to happen.

I jsut had to reply to this. What do you think geocaching.com is? And yes, I know there are other sites, but they are pretty dead.

June 3, 2003

Just one point I would like to raise.

How many out of all the caches in the UK or the world come to that, have had the Landowners permission up to now.

I would bet less than one percent. Its impossible for the approvers to check every placement. Geocaching is unregulated. Oh I know it pretends to be but the reality of it is it’s not, and never can be.

How about a poll.

Have you gained permission for every cache you have placed? If the answer is an overwhelming yes then we may need an association. If not then you may as well forget it.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Spike:
I jsut had to reply to this. What do you think geocaching.com is? And yes, I know there are other sites, but they are pretty dead.

It's a website and a database where I can post a cache or log a find. The rules they have are for putting a cache in their database. Bit different from representing but that's an old arguement I'm not going back down. Everyone in this forum already knows my feelings on that.

June 3, 2003

quote:
- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)? _What's wrong with the GC.com UK admins?_

How does a landowner contact them? Add to that the fact that many landowners will NOT want the hassles of emailing (erm... emailing WHO?)... it would be simpler to just scrap the box.

I think what they really need is a phone number to call (eg: they are out, mobile in pocket... They find a box, which has a clear note "XYZ association: if you have any queries about this box, please phone us on 01234 567890 quoting 'GC1234'" is a simple solution.)

quote:
should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement? _What's wrong with the current set of UK rules?

Problem: where are they written down? At the moment they are simply NOT available.

quote:
Sure, all these adhoc agreements the old moderators made with Grounded should have been written down somewhere (ideally GC.com!) but once that's been done, what's left to do?_

Keep them up to date? You may also find that certain landowners might wish to impose extra rules (eg caches to be disabled may & june, due to birds nesting) and a national organisation's web site would be an excellent place to list this info.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:
If an association starts negotiating new rules with large landowners, then there's a real possibility that, across the majority of the UK, people will only be able to place caches if they're a member of the association.

A better wording of that would be:

If an association starts negotiating new rules with large landowners, then there's a real possibility that, across the majority of the UK, people will only be able to place caches if they adhere to the guidelines issued by the association.

At the moment, if you want to have your cache listed on the "Geocaching.com club's website" then you have to adhere to THEIR rules. If you wish to have it listed on OTHER caching sites, then maybe those rules do NOT apply.

But, if "XYZ Landowner" issues their own guidelines, then it won't matter WHOSE website you list a cache on, you WILL HAVE TO adhere to that landowner's rules. Which may be different from the "ABC landowner" or "EFG Landowner" guidelines.

Far better to have a single set of rules that everyone can use....

You don't need to be a member of the association to find out the guidelines under which geocaching is allowed on specified land. But you may find that certain cache-listing sites would either (a) INSIST that your cache must adhere to those guidelines to be listed; ( INSIST that you are a member of the association.... that is the right of any organisation, if they so choose.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Icenians:
True, but Paul did say that the thread was to discuss what was wanted and wasn't about any particular association. That would make this the best place for a discussion on that.

Thank you for highlighting that again.... I was indeed very careful NOT to suggest that this was a discussion about GAGB.

It is *possible* that GAGB *does* become the designated organisation supported by UK cachers.... and then again, it could just as easily be felt, for WHATEVER reasons, that something different is more appropriate.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wossa:
So if we agree with you we can speak otherwise we should go elsewhere?

No, if you wish to **positively contribute** to the topic that I have defined, please join in.

Anything else is OFF TOPIC for *this* topic: all you have to do is to start a new topic, eg "why we should NOT have a UK geocaching association", and say what you wish there.

I do NOT want this topic to be a discussion about whether an association is needed, I want it to be a discussion about: if an association were to be created, what should it's terms of reference be?

If I start a topic about "what should the rules for TB rugby be, if should we decide to run a game?", then it would be quite reasonable to ask that discussions about (a) TB soccer; ( TB baseball; or © why do we want to play TB rugby anyway; should be taken elsewhere.

I don't think this is at all unreasonable.

June 3, 2003

L8Ed you have put your finger on one of the real problems.Every bit of land in is owned by somebody .It is obvious that most caches are placed ILLEGALY.Geocaching is agrowing sport and as such is going to come under public and official scrutiny whether we like it or not.I am afraid if we are not careful we will lose large areas of GB to geocaching.Sorry Team Blitz, I realise this is not what you want but the longer it takes to set something up the more problems we may end up with

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:
A better wording of that would be:

If an association starts negotiating new rules with large landowners, then there's a real possibility that, across the majority of the UK, people will only be able to place caches if they _adhere to the guidelines issued by _ the association.

Yes, that would be a far better wording , and I'd have no problems with that whatsoever. Quite the opposite! I just worry that mine might be the more accurate wording...

quote:
From the minutes of a meeting about a possible New Zealand association:
DOC desire to work with only one organisation representing geocaching in NZ. They suggest that people who want to geocache, must be members of the society. This dictates that the society should limit geocache information to members only, and have moderation control over caches.

Unlike in NZ, we are not yet at the point where we have to consider this sort of concession in order that our sport may survive.

It would be foolish to pretend that negotiating with large land owners does not carry large dangers, and foolish to argue that it does not carry large potential benefits. This is a good argument for forming an association, as we can ensure that the people doing the talking are both good diplomats, and representative of the bulk of geocachers.

However, I do not feel that the issues of ending up with members-only caching have been properly addressed. Which, if any, of these would / should represent the association's position?:

- We will never negotiate members-only geocaching

- We will never negotiate members-only cache placing

- We prefer rules-based caching, but would negotiate members-only, if it opened up new areas in which we could gain official permission to cache

- Members-only caching is a good idea because it keeps land owners happy

- Why the fuss? You have to be a member of GC.com anyway! What's another membership requirement added to the list?

quote:
you may find that certain cache-listing sites would <snip> INSIST that you are a member of the association.... that is the right of any organisation, if they so choose.

If GC.com exercised their right to insist that I was a member of the UK association, then "people will only be able to place caches if they're a member of the association" and we're back to my,(worse!) wording again

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:

quote:
What's wrong with the GC.com UK admins?

How does a landowner contact them?

I think what they really need is a phone number to call

Agreed, but I think the best person to contact would be the cache owner. Failing that would be the GC.com cache approvers, who have the ability to chase up the problem and the power to archive the cache if necessary. Contacting an association spokesperson would be a distant third choice to me. ('Course, in reality, they could all be the same person )

quote:
Originally posted by Team Blitz:

quote:
What's wrong with the current set of UK rules?

Problem: where are they written down? At the moment they are simply NOT available.

You may also find that certain landowners might wish to impose extra rules and a national organisation's web site would be an excellent place to list this info.

Agreed. We need a web page to list UK rules. Surely the best place for this would be GC.com? That's where the caches are approved, after all.

We don't need to form an association simply to provide a repository of information about UK geocaching. However, looking back at the relative timing of various events, the apparently hurried nature of the GAGB launch, and Moss Trooper's cryptic comment in the Navic*che forum, then maybe what you say actually ties together some loose threads. But I had far greater hopes and expectations of GAGB than just being a(nother) UK geocaching information website.

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

June 3, 2003

Rules ,what rules?I seem to have read somewhere that we are not meant to cache on other peoples property without permission?Is this obeyed?No tacitly it is not.This is happening in the UK where all land is owned by somebody-not like some other countries(the states?)This is inevitably going to lead totrouble as more and more people start geocaching in this country.I am pleased with this thread which isbringing aboard some thoughtful and construnctive ideas.Thanks TeamBlitz and all the others for being brave enough to try again .Ihope you are succesful by setting something up that the vast majority of geocachers can feel comfy with

June 3, 2003

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc?

It should represent England, Scotland, Wales and possibly Northern Ireland as long as there is general consent from the teams living in these countries. I think the term UK and GB my not be appropriate (particularly with Scotland and Wales having their own devolved governments making different laws).

- how many people would be needed to run it?

As few as possible. A point of contact/representative for each county or cluster of counties may be a good idea to enable easy communication between landowners and a local relevent person.

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching?

I did not agree with actively seeking publicity at first but think it has helped the hobby recently. I bet there are good number of people on this forum who read/saw/heard about Geocaching from various radio and TV articles about it.

However I do think this will have to be carefully handled. You can have too much of a good thing. The HCC barbeque weekend is a good example of how publicity should work if all the plans and arrangements work out.

Publicity can also be used by the association to promote the hobby to landowners and further legitimise things.

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"?

A big yes. There are a lot of caches out there that are already on private land.

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)?

A tricky one. I do not think it should replace the Geocaching.com logo on cache containers but do think if a person placing a cache does not want to put their own mobile number of the cache an alternative number could be made available by the association.

- should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement?

It should provide information to Geocachers on areas that have been given the green light and any exceptional rules for cache placement in those areas e.g. The forestry Commision have allowed cache placement on their land as long as it is within 20 metres of a track.

It should also provide information of sensitve landowners, forbidden caching areas and any complaints from landowners.

- should it be involved with cache approval?

The cache approvers need to be aware of locations where caches are not allowed. So there will have to be some communication between them and the Association. They will need to refer to the association but do not neccesarily need to be a representative of the Association. I also think we need to define how caches would get rejected:

Landowner says no- Cache not allowed

Landowner is not aware- If it is a big landowner then it should be referred to the expertise of the association to seek approval. If it is a smaller landowner for example a farmer or private landowner then that is up to the team to seek approval

- what should it be called?

Not Important to me.

Thanks

Chris

LASSITUDE- (noun) Tiredness and apathy: a state of weariness accompanied by listlessness or apathy[15th century. Via French from Latin lassitudo , from lassus 'weary'.]

June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lassitude:
- what should it be called?

Not Important to me.

How about Not Important To Some? I prefer the acronym.

What's your favourite thing?

1.4k · June 4, 2003

How about a local experiment ?

Just an idea - why not create a local association for Hampshire. This could deal with HCC and other landowners in the area who seem to be keen to talk to us.

Lets see how things work there before it gets expanded into the rest of the UK. I think the idea has merit but the devil will be in the detail - lets find out the problems small scale before going nationwide. Waddayafink?

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

June 4, 2003

quote:
- what should it be called?

From the way this thread has gone, I suggest a purely local association called

Hampshire Associated Geocachers Getting Lots of Exercise.

(For the small number of list members who seem to not recognise such things, I should point out that this is a joke).

They told me there was a new cachepoint in town - imagine my disappointment when there was no log book!

Paul

I came, I cached, I fell over in the mud

June 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
Just an idea - why not create a local association for Hampshire. This could deal with HCC and other landowners in the area who seem to be keen to talk to us.

Great idea Chris. I wish that I had thought of that.

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:
There may well be a "majority" of cachers in the Hampshire/Winchester area who are in favour of starting some kind of association and as that is the area where all the hard work has been done with the LOCAL council, why not start a LOCAL association and take things from there?

Ah... I did think of it.

Alex.

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

1.4k · June 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:
Ah... I did think of it.

Sorry, it was such a good idea I thought i had thought of it

Just wanted to emphasis using a local pilot for a national organisation may be the way to go. But credit for the idea goes to the knights of the Green Shield of course.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

June 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
But credit for the idea goes to the knights of the Green Shield of course.

A wise move. You wouldn't want me to have to send Willy Wright and his boys round to pay you a visit, would you??

Alex.

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

June 4, 2003

Good one Slytherin ,Chris and Maria.What about one to cover say your part of the country Slytherin??

1.4k · June 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:
A wise move. You wouldn't want me to have to send Willy Wright and his boys round to pay you a visit, would you??

Of course I could always give the Barking Slugs (supersmugs) a ring - they could meet up here

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

June 4, 2003

I started to read this thread, and noted that it had begun to move into a discussion of whether or not we need a representative organisation, which is not what Paul asked for. Sine I am one of the guilty few who gets drawn into heated debates, I've decided to steer clear, and just answer Paul's questions.

- should it represent UK, GB, England, Wales etc?

I would suggest trying it on a small area. If successful there, move it to a wider one.

- how many people would be needed to run it?

As few as possible. I would propose that the organisation should merely act as a 'gateway' to the caching community.

For example, it could be a database of cachers from whom to contact for the land owners, and for the cachers, relay any information that land owners may want to provide.

A potential scenario: a land owner may want to tell the caching community that all caches in X area are out of bounds for two months while birds are nesting.

This would have the result that in effect it would be no different to now, except that important information is collected together in an accessible form, and both cachers and landowners would be able to easily communicate with one another.

- should it pro-actively be promoting geocaching?

I don't think that should be a primary aim at this time - I think to do so would be giving the organisation too many responsibilities.

- Should it be pro-actively promoting to landowners, with the aim of getting "general cache-placement approval"?

Yes - but through the caching community. In other words, for each occasion where a meeting with a landowner is seen to be required, the community of cachers would suggest a suitable person - this may be due to geographical location, caching experience, and experience in talking with authority bodies.

This would also prevent the hypothetical situation where someone decides off their own back to contact such-and-such county council, and when they don't get want they want, kick up a fuss and make the situation worse. It is obviously worth noting that on the whole, people who do contact landowners or land managers would no doubt do an excellent job, but this option would allow the whole community to have involvement in choosing who represents them - not just one individual deciding that they are fit for the job.

For those of you who suggest that above scenario would not happen - remember that when Phil Allen from HCC took the time to come onto these boards, a few people accused him of not existing because what he said appeared to support one side of the argument and not the other.

- should it act as a "single & convenient point of contact" for caching enquiries (eg from both people wanting to go hunting, and landowners who find a cache)?

Only in as much as it could provide a database of reliable people to contact.

E.G. Someone from Buxton wants to start caching, and so the organisation may suggest that they contact Teasel (not to be detrimental to anyone else from Buxton - just Teasel is the first name that springs to mind that comes from Buxton), and give them the appropriate contact details.

Or, if a landowner wants to organise a caching event (as with the upcoming HCC event) it may suggest experienced event-cachers who may be willing to help get it going.

- should it be promoting a single set of UK-wide (or GB-wide etc) "local recommendations" for cache placement?

Again, only in as much as it could provide a database of requirements from local landowners. I don't believe that it should have any control over the approval process, but people who place caches that don't follow the land owners requirements should be made aware that the land owner may remove them.

I don't think that it should fulfill any sort of "policing" role, but rather literally promote land owner requirements, and cachers should realise that landowners would themselves be willing to enforce them. It should work as a matter of respect - Cachers realise that landowners allow caching, and as such, follow their requests.

In contrast, Caches which are placed within the landowners requirements could have a notice stating that they have been placed with the landowners consent.

- should it be involved with cache approval?

No. GC.com/whatever other site should approve caches. The organisation should be a means to encourage cachers to place them legally, and within any wishes of the landowner.

Again - to do otherwise would, in my opinion, give the organisation too much control.

- what should it be called?

Not important at this time, except to suggest that the name should be location-neutral.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

June 4, 2003

Like this a lot Kouros.Obviously a lot of thought is being put into this. It feels as if many lessons have been learnt and a framework is being built that will not make too many geocachers unhappy.

June 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
Of course I could always give the Barking Slugs (supersmugs) a ring - they could meet up http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=61203

Hold up John... you starting something??

Better appoint some thumpires first..

What is wanted of a national geocaching organisation

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment