If GAGB only does 1 thing this year what should it

[Chris n Maria]

Time to say what is most important to you about the Associations aims - which one is most important to you ?

[The Merman]

"Liasing with local and national land-owning bodies, agreeing mutually beneficial guidelines so that caching on their land is approved and encouraged."

I think the more caches that are placed the more important it is to have the approval of the land owners.

A recent cache placed in Hampshire highlights this fact.

Two cachers who work for the new Air traffic control centre in Swanwick sought and received permission to place a cache in the wildlife reserve area that has been set up there.

There is no ambiguity about it, permission sought permission granted, the cache will not be a future problem.

We are not all in the privileged position of being to liase with our bosses, so that is where a National Association comes in.

[Kouros]

Completely agree with Merman. Nothing more to add.

[The Bennett Family]

I agree, Merman seems to have covered it.

Not so long ago we were caught by a landowner 'red handed' whilst we were putting back a cache we had found.
He wasn't very happy at all, not because he objected to the cache itself but more because permission hadn't been sought for it.

I didn't feel comfortable at all, & all I could do was to promise to E-mail the cache placer & offer to remove the cache if he so wished (he didn't)
I didn't point him in the direction of geocaching.com site because at the end of the day it's just a listing service (albeight a damned good one - no criticism implied here)
It would have been nice to point him in the direction of a (UK based!) association for reassurance.

Gaz.

Love the forums by the way, very tasteful

[Pharisee]

Just managed to get in. It was a bit of a struggle, what with forgotten passwords and the like but for better or worse... yer stuck with me. (I hope it's for the better :) )

If GAGB manage to achieve just one national, or even local, agreement then it will have been worthwile.

[el10t]

I agree. I think if the association can:
- rebuild the fractured links with the forestry commision
- and the HCC
- and other major land owners around the country

then it will benefit everyone.

The other thing I would like to see in the first year, in fact as soon as possible, is the election of officials who are capable of negotiating professionally with such landowners to the benefit of all members.

[Paul G0TLG]

Nothing to add other than that I agree...let's get those formal approvals and some proper relations with land managers.

Paul G0TLG

[LizCodd]

Aahhhhhhhhh!

What pleasant mutterings. . .

I agree with them all.

Good luck and thanks for the forum!

Lizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee :lol:

[Motley Crew]

Merman Chris seems to have it just about right.

I would like to see an emphasis on the word 'guidlines' being used throughout. In my view it implies that things are there to help people - which seems friendlier and more encouraging than the 'rules' word. (I hope that make sense!)

I'm thinking there must be a lot of cachers similar to the 2 cachers mentioned by Merman who sought and received permission to place a cache on land managed by their employers. Therefore it would also be ideal if it is made clear that there is no intention to interfere with an individuals negotiations with a potential site owner.

Well done GAGB, good luck for the future.

(Not sure about the logo :unsure: )

[The Bennett Family]

(Not sure about the logo)

We quite like it.

On the subject of the logo are there any rules about using it?

Usual stuff, can I stick it on my website etc...

Cheers.

[el10t]

Originally posted by The Bennett Family@Jun 6 2003, 11:35 PM

(Not sure about the logo)

We quite like it.

On the subject of the logo are there any rules about using it?

Usual stuff, can I stick it on my website etc...

Cheers.
As you are a member I think you should feel free to put the GAGB logo on your website. It would be good if you could link back to this site too, so that people visiting your site and seeing the logo can easily find out what it is all about.

[Team Hydro]

This is all very calm here. I like it! Thankyou to everyone who has made this possible. I too would like to see elected reps, they may well be the people facilitating everything now, but if they are elected then surely that will give them more clout!?

[DerekReed]

Originally posted by Team Hydro@Jun 6 2003, 11:57 PM
This is all very calm here. I like it! Thankyou to everyone who has made this possible. I too would like to see elected reps, they may well be the people facilitating everything now, but if they are elected then surely that will give them more clout!?
Maybe some of those who originally had a problem with the setting up of a Geocaching Association would do a little better if they actually became involved in the setting up, and running, of the {new} Association, thereby removing any possibility of them saying it was done without their approval, etc...

Maybe some of the points they have are valid, but just the way they are trying to put over their ideas is distorted by the medium of Internet... :blink:

You never know. Some of their brighter ideas could be the ones we'll need in the future. ;)

[marinor]

Its aims are to establish good practice, provide a focal point for public liaison and support the growth and enjoyment of Geocaching in harmony with the law and environment.


I think the website homepage says it all. :D

[Admin]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Jun 6 2003, 07:05 PM
Just managed to get in. It was a bit of a struggle, what with forgotten passwords and the like <snip>
Sorry Pharisee and any others who found this a bit of a pain.

We had two choices, the way we did it, or ask everybody to start all over.

So, we sat down and did all the donkey work.

Sorry also for going "off topic".

[djh]

:D
I think Merman has hit the nail on the head. I visited the said cache in Hampshire this week, it is in the sort of area that most caches are placed (somewhere of interest, quiet and involved a lovely walk) This is the way forward&#33;

[The Northumbrian]

The Northumbrian thinks that the setting up of the gagb
can only be a very positive move for the benifit of all geocaches and I agree with what you have all said. I have great admiration for the people who have given up time to make this possible, well done to all of you.
Nige

[paul.blitz]

We had two choices, the way we did it, or ask everybody to start all over.

Well, *something* went wrong for me.... the email said "use the username you signed up with, which is given at the top of this email"..... unfortunately, that bit was blank....

So, I tried to create an account for "paul.blitz", but complained that there was already an account with that email.... so changed the email, and finally got in&#33;

So please kill my "original" account (whatever it was&#33;)


But anyway, good to see the forum online: I think I agree with most of the posts here: #1 must be getting good relationships with landowners... and getting a way for landowners to quickly & easily contact "someone of knowledge" in the caching-world.



Paul

[Brenin Tegeingl]

No one for the my wish list for GAGB is. For the majoritie of Landowners/Managers, large and small. To be as aware of GAGB, as they are of the Ramblers Association. As this would mean both GAGB and the Geocaching communitie in general are becoming mare main stream, and not just a bunch people consider TechnoLouts.
Mancunian Pyrocacher avid GAGB supporter :D

[Bill D (wwh)]

Liasing with local and national land-owning bodies, etc., as The Merman and others have said. Not long ago things had seemed to be going well in that direction - hopefully that position can be regained.

[chuffer]

My wish, as primary objective would be to.....

To produce a set of GAGB cache specifications to which the three groups involved in geocaching can look to for guidance. The three groups I refer to are ; Cache Placer, Cache Finder and Landowner.

--
Caches placed adhering to these specifications would ensure that....

Cache placer has taken care to ensure the location is authorised, a suitable location, does not infringe any local or national restrictions regarding access, contains only suitable contents...... and on... Cache placer can then badge the cache as being created subject to GAGB guidelines.

Cache finder can be assured that a GAGB badged cache has been placed correctly and there should be no problems regarding finding the cache.

Landowner can be confident that the cache is being placed under specifications drawn up by a respectable and accessible national body.

--

In my view these primary building blocks need to be created first, then it may be possible to move on to other plans, such as, major landowner negotiations.

[Teasel]

Yeah, what he said&#33; :)

I agree with Merman - liase with local and (when we&#39;ve got a few precedents under our belts) national land owners.

I think the more caches that are placed the more important it is to have the approval of the land owners.
Quite. But how many caches currently have such approval, I wonder? Couple of percent perhaps? Requiring cache placers to gain approval from the land owners would stifle geocaching. So anything GAGB can do to get blanket permission is a good thing.

Depending on the peculiarities of the particular land / land owner, this may require specific extra guidelines to be followed before a cache can be approved. But I don&#39;t see how requiring a GAGB badge, or GAGB membership before a cache is approved on GC.com is a good thing?

[Richard and Beth]

Originally posted by Teasel@Jun 11 2003, 09:21 PM
Requiring cache placers to gain approval from the land owners would stifle geocaching.

It is interesting to note that the Geocaching.com guidelines here (https://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp) assume that any cache placers have gained permission.



We&#39;re assuming that you asked permission to post your cache. However, if we see any listing description mentioning ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing will be automatically archived.


So it is untrue to say that it would stifle geocaching as it is already required, and the hobby does not appear to be stifled. Having said that the attitude taken generally is to assume that people have obtained permission, and then archive if it is later discovered that they haven&#39;t (usually when someone complains having caught another geocacher trying to find the cache). It is therefore safe to assume that a significant number of caches will not have approval from the landowner, however as GC.com&#39;s attitude is that all the caches have permission the actual numbers are unknown.

It&#39;s probably fairer to say that enforcing cache placers gaining approval would stifle geocaching - in fact the whole system would probably grind to a halt with the administrative overhead, hence why I believe that going for the kind of blanket approvals along the lines of HCC will be of benefit, and hopefully diffuse the potential time bomb for the hobby of caches placed without permission.

Richard

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Teasel@Jun 11 2003, 09:21 PM
But I don&#39;t see how requiring a GAGB badge, or GAGB membership before a cache is approved on GC.com is a good thing?
Ummm&#33; I don&#39;t remember this ever having been said or suggsted by anyone as even being a possibility

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Jun 11 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Jun 11 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Teasel@Jun 11 2003, 09:21 PM
But I don&#39;t see how requiring a GAGB badge, or GAGB membership before a cache is approved on GC.com is a good thing?
Ummm&#33; I don&#39;t remember this ever having been said or suggsted by anyone as even being a possibility [/b][/quote]
So am I right in assuming that the guidelines will make no real difference to the approval process?

Do I still need to get permission from the landowner (in this case HCC)?
or can I just place anywhere on HCC land and as long as I follow the guidelines it&#39;ll be OK?
or should I always check with a representative of HCC?

If I have followed the guidlines then the cache should have no real approval problems with GC.com Approvers - is that right? I don&#39;t need to be a GAGB member etc?

Just trying to make sure we all have the same understanding of this
Chris

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@ Jun 12 2003, 09:08 AM
So am I right in assuming that the guidelines will make no real difference to the approval process?
Other than the fact that we will have guidelines specifically for the UK, there is no difference as far as we can see.



Do I still need to get permission from the landowner (in this case HCC)?
or can I just place anywhere on HCC land and as long as I follow the guidelines it&#39;ll be OK?
or should I always check with a representative of HCC?
Blanket permission has been requested from HCC and once complete, permission will not be required on a cache by cache basis. However, the guidelines say "After placing a cache on countryside sites, the site manager must be informed to ensure that the cache does not compromise the management of the site." This simply means that the warden can just make sure there is no issue. For example a cache placed within one of the two patches of "red-something-or-other" wild flowers that exist within the UK (as mentioned before).


If I have followed the guidlines then the cache should have no real approval problems with GC.com Approvers - is that right? I don&#39;t need to be a GAGB member etc?
That&#39;s right, I dont remember it ever having been said that there was any compulsion to join. Unless of course you wish to have a say in how the GAGB is run.

In the same way you don&#39;t have to be registered with GC.com, unless you wish to log or place caches.

[Chris n Maria]

Thanks,

That all seems to make sense.

Chris

[Lassitude]

The one thing I would love to see would be getting the Forestry Comission on our side.

I want to place a cache in FC woods very near where I now live. I am sure that I have done caches on FC land in the past and I am wondering if a cache palced there would be rejected? - In fact now that I think about it &#39;Singled Out&#39; is in the same area of woods that is owned by the FC.

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Lassitude@Jun 12 2003, 08:59 PM
The one thing I would love to see would be getting the Forestry Comission on our side.

I want to place a cache in FC woods very near where I now live. I am sure that I have done caches on FC land in the past and I am wondering if a cache palced there would be rejected? - In fact now that I think about it &#39;Singled Out&#39; is in the same area of woods that is owned by the FC.
I don&#39;t think FC have actually BANNED the placing of caching on their sites have they?

Ok, they haven&#39;t come out to say that they will PERMIT it... but that&#39;s not quite the same as actually banning it, is it?

I can think of a cache very close to where the HCC event will be held that is actually on FC land.... it&#39;s been there for ages, it still gets hunted for & gets found, and I have no doubt that FC know it&#39;s there.

And, for one night only, there will probably be 2 or 3 more joining it&#33; But, shhhh.... don&#39;t tell anyone&#33;


Paul

[Chris and Mary B]

i don&#39;t think the pain in rejoining has been that much trouble. I&#39;d like to say I agree with all that&#39;s been said above, and that it makes a nice change to have a web forum without trolls and flame wars (not a criticism of any forum in particular&#33;). Lets keep it that way. We&#39;ve discovered Geocaching by accident, enjoyed it, and liked the fellow cachers we&#39;ve met so far.